HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-07 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: June 7, 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 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative
Future Agenda items.
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. 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Request for
Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Exterior Remodel of an Existing
Two-Story Hotel Building at 3945 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: The
Project is Exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning
District: Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-30) and Service
Commercial (CS). For more information, contact the project planner Phillip Brennan
at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4115 El Camino Real (17PLN-00280):
Consideration of a Major Architectural Review of a Proposed Three-Story, 16,726
Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Retail, Second
Floor Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (Seven Residential Units in Total)
and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being
Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning
District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information, Contact the Project
Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org.
_______________________
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.
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
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 2018.
Subcommittee Items
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 # 9326)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 6/7/2018
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 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance
Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items.
From: Jonathan Lait
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 are assigned by the ARB Chair.
The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming
projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change.
Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at
http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the
ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) 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.
1
Packet Pg. 4
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Attachments:
Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)
Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 5
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 Baltay
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 Thompson
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
Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing
January February March April May June
1/18 Baltay/Lew 5/3 Furth/Lew
July August September October November December
1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Architectural Review Board
2018 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
June 21 375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage
180 El Camino Real: Shake Shack
July 5 Tier 3 Wireless – Vinculums/Verizon – Cluster 2
1.b
Packet Pg. 7
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 9262)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/7/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 3945 El Camino: Comfort Inn Hotel Renovation (2nd Formal)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3945 El Camino Real
[16PLN-00374]: Request for Approval of a Major Architectural
Review to Allow an Exterior Remodel of an Existing Two-Story
Hotel Building at 3945 El Camino Real. Environmental
Assessment: The Project is Exempt from CEQA per Guideline
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Medium
Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-30) and Service
Commercial (CS). For more information, contact the project
planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and
Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Report Summary
The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes
extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies;
that report is available online:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64583. A copy of the report
without prior attachments is available in Attachment E.
The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the
applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the
information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes.
Background
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
On April 19, 2018, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is
available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHnsdYqg0Xs&feature=youtu.be. The
Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table:
ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response
Reduce total number of materials and enhance
street-facing materials. A simplified palette of
higher quality exterior materials should be
utilized along the street-facing façade of the
building.
The applicant has simplified the exterior
material choices, incorporating higher
grade finishes such as Trespa panels and Ipe
wood siding.
Increase Street Presence of Lobby. The hotel
lobby and main entrance should be better
distinguished to announce its presence at
street-level.
The applicant has proposed enlarged
window glazing along the lobby’s second-
story and new front entry awning.
Increase seating for pedestrians. A new bench is provided in front of the
lobby. (Sheet A02.00 and A09.12)
Dedicated Registration Parking Space(s).
Explore the feasibility of providing a dedicated
registration space for guests.
The applicant has provided two parking lot
design alternatives that provide a dedicated
registration space(s) for hotel guests.
Alternative Tree Species. Explore alternatives
to the proposed London plane and Oak tree
for species that may be more appropriate for
the site.
The applicant has proposed three new tree
species to be located in the patio, stair
tower planters, and parking islands.
Analysis1
The ARB provided specific project related guidance to the applicant during its initial formal
review of the subject application (16PLN-00374). The ARB’s primary comments and the
applicant’s response to the feedback are further detailed in the following sections.
Reduce total number of materials and enhance street-facing materials.
The consensus expressed by the ARB regarding the design of the building’s street-facing façade
was that too many materials were being proposed and they were not of high-quality finish. In
response, the applicant has proposed to utilize Ipe wood paneling on the new trash enclosure,
and carry it along the first-floor level of the lobby and along the outdoor patio wall to create a
unified and consistent look from El Camino Real. The originally proposed painted cement
plaster on the second-story of the lobby has been replaced with painted (white) Trespa Meteon
Panels that provides a more sophisticated and modern finish.
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. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Increase Street Presence of Lobby
The ARB agreed strongly that the design of the hotel’s lobby and main entry needed further
attention to better signal its presence and location on the street for guests coming to the hotel,
as well as pedestrian and vehicle traffic passing by. In response, the applicant is proposing to
replace the proposed lobby windows with two levels of large frameless storefront glazing that
extends from nearly floor to ceiling to increase visibility of the lobby area from the street. The
powder-coated steel beam awning, featuring the hotel’s name in raised stainless steel lettering,
is proposed along the building frontage over the main entry and helps to provide a visual cue of
the lobby entrance. Additionally, a custom bench in matching Ipe wood is proposed under the
entry overhang to provide guests a convenient location to wait for share ride or taxi service to
pull-up at the designated white curb loading zone located in front of the hotel.
Dedicated Registration Parking Space(s)
Some members of the Board asked the applicant to explore the inclusion of dedicated parking
space(s) for the purpose of providing guests of the hotel a convenient location to temporarily
park near the front lobby when registering. In response, the applicant has proposed two new
parking layout designs featuring dedicated registration spaces:
Option 1 designates two of the proposed 57 guest spaces (shown as spaces #31-32 on Sheet
A02.00 of the project plans) to be utilized as temporary parking spaces for guest registration
located across the driveway from the patio entry. A comparative parking analysis performed at
the subject site and comparable hotels along the Peninsula determined the Comfort Inn’s
proposed 57 off-street guest parking spaces would sufficiently accommodate the 67 guest room
hotel even at 100 percent occupancy; only 45 parking spaces would be needed based on the
average peak parking occupancy rate (0.66 occupied spaces per occupied room). As such, the
resulting 55 spaces would provide adequate hotel guest parking even at full occupancy, while
also providing temporary spaces for registration.
Option 2 removes the proposed planter along the outdoor patio wall and places two tandem
registration parking spaces in that area to provide convenient access to the lobby entrance
(Sheet A12.02). This design, while locating the registering guests closer to the lobby, creates
clearance issues in the drive aisle. Per PAMC Section 18.54.070 – Table 3 uni-class parking stalls
(8.5 feet x 17.5 feet) oriented at a 90 degree angle require a 25 foot wide drive aisle. The
proposed drive aisle in this location would only be 14 feet 10 inch. The Fire Department is not
supportive of this arrangement as it would provide less than the required 20 foot width
necessary for their fire engines to access and maneuver. If the ARB would like a temporary
parking space in a similar location/configuration, the patio could be reduced in size and one
parking space could be provided while providing the required 25 feet of back-out space for
parked cars on the opposite side of the driveway.
Alternative Tree Species
Members of the ARB suggested the applicant utilize different tree species than the proposed
London Plane and Oak as primary trees in the interior landscape areas. In response, the
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
applicant has proposed new native California tree species; one (1) Pacific Madrone to serve as
the featured outdoor patio tree; two (2) Catalina Ironwood trees for the large stair tower
planters; and three (3) California Sycamore trees for each of the parking island planters. The
California Sycamore is deciduous, while the Pacific Madrone and Catalina Ironwood are
evergreen. All of the proposed trees will be 24 inch box size when planted. Photo examples of
each tree species provided in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1
Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii)
Environmental Review
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. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of
the CEQA in accordance with Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
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 [DATE], which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on
[DATE], which is [DAYS] in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may:
Catalina Ironwood
(Lyonothamnus floribundus subsp.
Asplenifolius)
California Sycamore (Platanus
racemose)
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions;
2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or
3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information
Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575
phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Location Map (JPG)
Attachment B: Draft Findings (DOCX)
Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)
Attachment D: Applicant's Response to ARB Comments (PDF)
Attachment E: April 19, 2018 Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX)
2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 12
2.a
Packet Pg. 13
ATTACHMENT B
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
3945 El Camino Real
16PLN-00374
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings
for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
Finding #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:
In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality
design compatible with surrounding development.
Comp Plan Goals and Policies
How project adheres or does not adhere to
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for
the site is Multiple Family and Service Commercial.
The project continues the Service Commercial
land use.
Land Use and Community Design Element
Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing
residents and visitors with attractive
neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts,
public facilities and open spaces.
The proposed remodel of the existing hotel either
adheres to or increases compliance with the
applicable design guidelines, development
standards, and performance and context-based
criteria established for development in the CS
zoning district.
Policy L-1.11: 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.
Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of “community”
with development designed to foster public life,
meet citywide needs and embrace the principles
of sustainability.
The project scope includes widening a section of
sidewalk along the subject site’s frontage
bordering El Camino Real to 12 feet, which
enhances the pedestrian environment and
encourages active transportation options along
this service commercial corridor.
Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between
commercial and mixed use centers and the
2.b
Packet Pg. 14
surrounding residential neighborhoods by
promoting walkable and bikeable connections
and a diverse range of retail and services that
caters to the daily needs of residents.
Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and
redevelopment to incorporate greenery and
natural features such as green rooftops, pocket
parks, plazas and rain gardens.
The project increases the amount of landscaping
on the site providing new greenery along the
frontage and interior landscaping to include six
new trees located in existing planter and parking
islands.
Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create
coherent development patterns and enhance city
streets and public spaces.
The proposed remodel replaces the existing
roofline with a shed style roof that has its highest
point away from the street, providing a more
pedestrian-scaled frontage along El Camino Real.
Additionally, the front-entry opens facing the
sidewalk and is notched back to provide
additional visual clearance for pedestrians and
guests exiting the site’s parking lot.
Policy L-6.6: Design buildings to compliment
streets and public spaces; to promote personal
safety, public health and well-being; and to
enhance a sense of community safety.
Transportation Element
Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that
encourage and promote walking and bicycling. The project as proposed provides more (9 bike
racks) bicycle parking than required (one short-
term space per 10 guestrooms; 67 room = 7 bike
racks) as required per municipal code. The
provision of these facilities implicitly promotes
active modes of transportation for hotel workers
that may utilize bicycles to travel to work,
shopping, or services.
Policy T-1.16: Promote personal transportation
vehicles an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles,
skateboards, roller blades) to get to work,
school, shopping, recreational facilities and
transit stops.
Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage
and support bicycling and walking.
Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community,
b. 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,
c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district,
d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land
use designations,
e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent
residential areas.
2.b
Packet Pg. 15
The project is consistent with Finding #2 because:
The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project forwards a coherent contemporary
design that enhances the existing streetscape and includes amenities such as an outdoor seating area
intended to serve as an inviting gathering area for hotel guests. The proposed shed style roof above
the main lobby slopes upward from the street toward the lot’s interior which serves to visually reduce
the scale and mass of the remodeled hotel from El Camino Real. The proposed scope of work does not
negatively impact adjacent residential areas.
Finding #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 because:
The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project proposes a compatible contemporary
architectural design that utilizes clean and simple building lines and forms. The exterior material and
color palette includes a mixture of modern and rustic materials such as standing metal seamed roofs,
corrugated metal accents, Prodema cladding, painted wood rafter tails, aluminum louver treatments,
and a combination of warm earth tone and neutral colors on painted cement plaster. Taken as a whole,
the proposed remodel project will benefit the surrounding area aesthetic.
Finding #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 because:
The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project includes functional design aspects
intended to enhance the pedestrian environment, increase safety, and allow convenient access to on-
site facilities. The project provides a widened section of sidewalk to continue the existing 12 foot wide
segment of sidewalk in front of Keys School, creating a friendly environment for those walking in the
area. The proposed remodel includes a street facing lobby entrance that is jogged back to provide both
a covered entry, as well as to increase visibility of pedestrians and sightlines for drivers exiting the
hotel driveway. Short-term parking is provided near the front entrance to aid check-in of hotel patrons.
The proposed new covered trash enclosure has been increased in size to accommodate the current
level of service and allow easy access for waste recovery crews.
Finding #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.
2.b
Packet Pg. 16
The project is consistent with Finding #5 because:
The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed landscape design integrates into the
building design and site’s functions. Six new 24 inch box trees will be planted in new and existing
planter areas on the site to break up sightlines and provide shading along the expanse of the parking
lot. Smaller landscape improvements to include native and adapted drought tolerant species along the
site’s frontage, buffers between the ground floor guest rooms and parking area, and the courtyard. The
extensive row of mature dense shrubs along the south side yard property line will be maintained to
provide screening for hotel guests and students at the adjacent school.
Finding #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 because:
In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for
CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A summary of the project’s compliance is on sheet GB-1 of the plans.
2.b
Packet Pg. 17
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
3945 El Camino Real
16PLN-00374
________________________________________________________________________
PLANNING DIVISION
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans
entitled, "ASCEND PALO ALTO_3945 El Camino Real,” stamped as received by the City on January
18, 2018, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except
as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning,
Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of
approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit.
4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for
review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction
phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact
the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is
the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to
the project planner’s attention.
5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original
date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project
within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or
effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration.
6. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties
and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ 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.
7. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial
compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any
revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to;
2.c
Packet Pg. 18
materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Phillip Brennan at
phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection.
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
In addition to the peak parking demand reduction strategies outlined in the approved Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan dated October 12, 2017. The following standards and procedures
apply:
8. Required measures identified in the TDM plan shall remain in full force for the life of the project
unless altered by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
9. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Director two years after building occupancy and again
every year thereafter; see PAMC 18.52.050(d)(2). Prior to conducting required monitoring
activities, the applicant shall engage a qualified third party professional and submit a draft scope of
work to the Chief Transportation Official for approval. The draft report shall then be submitted to
the Chief Transportation Official for review, and if necessary, revision.
10. If, based on the results of the ongoing monitoring program, peak parking demand exceeds 60
parking stalls, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may require implementation
of the alternative parking plan described in the TDM plan, changes to the TDM program to meeting
parking demand targets, or impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not
addressed within six months (PAMC 18.52.050 (d)(4)).
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
11. EASEMENT: Indicate all existing easements on lot.
12. UTILITIES: Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas
meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or
relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department.
13. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the
public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans
must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor
performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development
Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk
associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the
standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned
driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip.
14. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-
of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit
for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF
2.c
Packet Pg. 19
THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE
BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.”
15. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and/or Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not
stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.”
Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite.
16. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of
the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our
website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
17. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El
Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement
with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for
work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and
permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control
devices as part of this project.
PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION
18. The applicant/property owner shall strictly comply with all recommendations contained in the tree
protection report and shall ensure the protection of neighboring trees.
19. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. Project site arborist will protect
and monitor neighboring protected oak during construction and share information with the tree
owner. All work shall be done in conformance with State regulations so as to ensure the long term
health of the tree. Project site arborist will request access to the tree on the neighboring property
as necessary to measure an exact diameter, assess condition, and/or perform treatment. If access
is not granted, monitoring and any necessary treatment will be performed from the project site.
20. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or
trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with
manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with
diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring
method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be
printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor.
21. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and
inspection schedule measures as a condition of the building permit, Sheet T-1, and is subject to
code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain
in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. The fencing shall contain required
warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted
after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project
arborist.
2.c
Packet Pg. 20
22. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting,
injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section
2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or
protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25.
23. TREE PLANTING. The applicant shall notify the Urban Forestry Section (650.496.5953) 24-48 hours
prior to installation of any new trees on site for the purpose of inspection and ensuring compliance
with tree planting standard detail #604 or approved alternate.
24. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No
storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure
area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained
shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
2.c
Packet Pg. 21
1000 BRANNAN STREET | SUITE 404 | SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 | 415.371.1400 TEL | 415.371.1401 FAX
Transmittal
Date: May 02, 2018 Re: ARB Set Rev4
To:
Phillip Brennan
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project:
3945 El Camino Real
Via: Email AXIS Project No. 16.015
We are Transmitting: For Your: The Following: Action:
□ Per your request
□ Enclosed
□ Under separate
cover via:
□ Approval
□ Review & Comment
□ Use
□ Distribution
□ Prints
□ Transparencies
□ Specifications
□ Shop Drawings
□ Information/Files
□ Please acknowledge
□ Please return
enclosures
□ Approved
□ Approved as noted
□ Other
Enclosed:
Quantity Description
Description of ARB Set Revision 4 changes.
Comments:
Hi Phillip,
Below are the changes to design per the comments from ARB hearing on 04/19/18.
1. The exterior finishes for the lobby building have been simplified and their quality upgraded. The
new finishes are Trespa Panels and Ipe wood siding.
Revised sheets: A00.07, A09.01, A09.02, A09.03, A12.00, A12.01.
2. The trash enclosure exterior and fence along the driveway finish Ipe wood is consistent with the
lobby finish to create more harmonies, simplified and unifying look.
Revised sheets: A00.07, A09.01, A09.02, A09.03, A12.00, A12.01.
3. In order to bring more visual attention to the hotel entry, new glazing at the upper part of
double height lobby and new awning at the entry door was added.
Revised Sheets: A00.07, A09.01, A09.02, A09.03.
2.d
Packet Pg. 22
1000 BRANNAN STREET | SUITE 404 | SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 | 415.371.1400 TEL | 415.371.1401 FAX
4. The corrugated metal is replaced with Trespa panels on the upper part of the lobby building.
The corrugated metal finish material is deleted from the existing stair towers.
The corrugated metal guardrail finish panel at the second floor of the lobby building was
replaced with white opaque glass.
Revised Sheets: A00.07, A09.01, A09.02, A09.03.
5. The landscape plan was revised to show three different tree types:
- Pacific madrone (patio)
- Catalina Ironwood (by the stair towers)
- California Sycamore (parking)
Revised Sheets: L-1.0.
6. Two registration parking stalls are dedicated across the patio entry. The location of the stalls are
selected to allow the shortest distance to the registration desk.
Revised Sheets: A02.00, A0.00A, A02.01, A09.12.
7. A new bench is introduced at the front of the lobby building along the sidewalk.
Revised Sheets: A02.00, A0.00A, A02.01, A09.12.
8. Per the owner request, the existing guardrail on the second floor of the walkway along the
guestrooms is to remain as is and to be painted.
Revised Sheets: A09.01, A09.02, A09.03.
Ania Klepacz LEED AP
Associate
1000 Brannan Street, Suite 404
San Francisco, CA 94103
415.371.1400x207 T
415.371.1401 F
axisgfa.com
2.d
Packet Pg. 23
1000 BRANNAN STREET | SUITE 404 | SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 | 415.371.1400 TEL | 415.371.1401 FAX
cc: AXIS/GFA File
2.d
Packet Pg. 24
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 8128)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/19/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 3945 El Camino: Comfort Inn Hotel Renovation (1st Formal)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3945 El Camino Real
[16PLN-00374]: Request for Approval of a Major Architectural
Review to Allow an Exterior Remodel of an Existing Two-Story
Hotel Building at 3945 El Camino Real. Environmental
Assessment: The Project is Exempt from CEQA per Guideline
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: RM-30/CS.
For more information, contact the project planner Phillip
Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org
From:Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1.Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and
Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Report Summary
The application is a request for architectural review for a proposed exterior remodel of an
existing two-story hotel building (currently the Comfort Inn) located on El Camino Real. The
scope-of-work includes extensive changes to the appearance of the building including updated
exterior material and finishes, building color scheme and structural changes to the lobby and
stairway rooflines, and a reduction in parking along with a TDM program to ensure sufficient
capacity remains on-site. The project is subject to architectural review findings, the Service
Commercial District’s (CS) context-based design criteria and compliance with the El Camino and
South El Camino Design Guidelines. As proposed, the project meets the applicable zoning
requirements; draft findings and conditions are included with this report. The Board is
encouraged to review the project and provide comments as necessary to further refine the
overall design.
Background
3
Packet Pg. 84
2.e
Packet Pg. 25
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Project Information
Owner: Rajen Shah
Architect: Shawn Alexander
Representative: N/A
Property Information
Address: 3945 El Camino Real
Neighborhood: Ventura
Lot Dimensions & Area: Varied: (width) 99.88-100.64 feet; (length) 387.81 to 392.72 feet;
39,077 square feet
Housing Inventory Site: Yes; Realistic Capacity of 18 units
Located w/in a Plume: No
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes; two (2) street trees located in public ROW and one (1) coast live
oak along the shared north side yard property line
Historic Resource(s): No
Existing Improvement(s): Two-story (23 feet 3 inches tall), 24,576 sf hotel building built in 1963
Existing Land Use(s): Hotel
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: PF (Ventura Center)
West: CS and RM-30 (Glass Slipper Inn Hotel and Merrilee Terrace
Apartments)
East: CS (Keys Middle School)
South: CN (commercial retail center and Valero gas station)
Aerial View of Property:
3
Packet Pg. 85
2.e
Packet Pg. 26
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Source: Google Maps
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation: Medium Density Multi-Family (RM-30)/ Service Commercial (CS)
Comp. Plan Designation: Multi-Family and Commercial Service
Context-Based
Design Criteria: Yes
Downtown Urban
Design Guide: Not applicable
South of Forest Avenue
Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable
Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable
El Camino Real Design
Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes; South of El Camino Real and El Camino Real Design Guidelines
Proximity to Residential
Uses or Districts (150'):
Site is dual zoned with the CS front portion of the lot abutting the
RM-30 rear half of the lot.
3
Packet Pg. 86
2.e
Packet Pg. 27
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: None
PTC: None
HRB: None
ARB: None
Project Description
The project proposes an exterior remodel of an existing 24,972 square foot (sf), two-story hotel
building built in 1963 and located on a 39,077 sf lot. The building was approved for its last
significant exterior remodel in 1998 (present condition) and is not designated as a historic
resource. The primary aspects of the project include a comprehensive exterior remodel of the
hotel comprised of a redesigned roof that will maintain the existing roof’s height of 23 feet 3
inches, replacement of one of three existing stair towers with a reconfigured stairway design,
new landscaping, a new covered trash enclosure, repaving and restriping of the parking lot, and
a new outdoor seating area intended to serve as an amenity for guests. The project also
includes interior remodel work that will not increase the floor area total for the site.
The remodel is part of rebranding of the existing Comfort Inn hotel into a more refined higher-
end lodging accommodation. The proposed design utilizes a contemporary aesthetic featuring
varied material and exterior finishes such as painted cement plaster walls, corrugated metal
panels, decorative screening and a stone mosaic wall feature. The proposal also includes a new
metal standing-seam shed roof for the front lobby portion of the structure and stair towers.
Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview:
The following discretionary applications are being requested:
x 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 B.
x Parking Adjustment: In accordance with PAMC Section 18.52.050, automobile parking
requirements may be adjusted by the Director of Planning and Community Environment
in limited instances, when in his/her opinion such adjustment will be consistent with the
purposes of the chapter, will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses
adjoining the site or in the general vicinity, and will be commensurate with the reduced
parking demand created by the development, including for visitors and accessory
facilities where appropriate.
3
Packet Pg. 87
2.e
Packet Pg. 28
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Analysis1
Neighborhood Setting and Character
The project site is located in an urbanized section of the Ventura neighborhood along the El
Camino Real northbound corridor. It is bounded by the Glass Slipper Inn to its left and Keys
School to the right.
The project has been reviewed for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and all applicable policy documents and design guidelines as described in
the following sections.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2
The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies and Programs that guide the physical form of
the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and
is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on
projects. Further, ARB finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with
applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Service Commercial with
Multi-Family towards the rear of the property. As stated in the Plan, the purpose of the
commercial land use designation is for citywide and regional services and relying on customers
arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian
areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and
dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service
types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that
customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. A review has been performed to
ensure the project’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies. That evaluation has
been provided in Attachment B.
El Camino Design Guidelines
The project is subject to the 1979 El Camino Design Guidelines (ECR) with respect to trees,
signage, architecture and building colors. The ECR Guidelines were intended in part to
encourage landscaping along the El Camino Real extending from Page Mill Road to the southern
city limits. The proposed scope includes new landscaping comprised of both native and
adaptable ornamental grass species of along the front property between the building structure
and trash enclosure. There are two existing mature street trees (Red oak and London plane)
located adjacent to the building frontage and large coast live oak located along the shared
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 make alternative findings. A
change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this
report.
2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
3
Packet Pg. 88
2.e
Packet Pg. 29
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
northern side yard that will be protected during the remodeling construction. A planter strip
measuring six inches high and approximately 50 feet long by 3 feet wide will be constructed
along the lobby and outdoor patio area and feature low-profile landscaping. The described
landscaping and proposed narrowing of the driveway width will aid in screening the off-street
parking area from street view as instructed by the ECR Guidelines.
South El Camino Design Guidelines
The project site is located in the Barron-Ventura area, which is characterized by moderately
dense development, with a large portion of buildings situated near the street. The project
design is consistent with the stated Barron-Ventura area district vision of maintaining the
neighborhood servicing commercial node and proposed remodel work that enhances the
overall visual appearance of the area with improved massing, façade transparency and
materials. The main entry design features extensive floor to ceiling glass treatment that
improves transparency and promotes visual interest at the pedestrian level. The proposed
roofline maintains the overall maximum height of the existing structure (23 feet 3 inches).
However, the leading roof edge is slopped downward toward El Camino Real and may increase
perceived scale and height discrepancies between the proposed building and the immediately
adjacent two-story structures from street level.
Zoning Compliance3
The subject lot is divided by two zoning districts near its mid-point with the front portion (42%
fronting El Camino Real) zoned as Service Commercial District (CS) and rear portion (58%) zoned
as Medium Density Multi-family Residence District (RM-30). Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Section 18.08.080, in instances where a lot is divided by differing zoning districts,
the provisions of the zoning regulations applicable for each district shall apply to each
respective lot sections accordingly.
A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has
been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D.
Project Uses
Since the time of issuance of its original use permit (62-UP-2) in 1962, the subject site existed in
two zoning districts; Service Commercial and Medium Density Multiple Family Residential
(formerly called RM-4 and now RM-30). The division of the zoning districts occurs
approximately 175 feet back from the front property line with the multi-family zoning district in
the rear half of the lot. Motel or hotel use is not a permitted land use in the RM-30, but is
covered by the “grandfather” clause provided by PAMC Section 18.13.070 (2)(C) in the zoning
ordinance that allows for its continued use in this capacity indefinitely so long as the number of
rooms or floor area of the building is not increased.
Part of the project scope includes the creation of a larger covered trash and recycling enclosure
to replace the existing smaller and uncovered enclosure currently on site. The larger covered
3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca
3
Packet Pg. 89
2.e
Packet Pg. 30
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
enclosure would bring the site into compliance with Solid Waste Management and
Stormwater Pollution Prevention requirements. By definition the new covered enclosure
would count toward the site’s gross floor area total (~216 sf), but is exempt per the provisions
outlined in PAMC Section 18.04.030 (65)(B)(iv). As such, it is not increasing the project’s degree
of non-compliance and is not in conflict with the terms of the aforementioned original use
permit.
Development in the CS zoning district requires that the City make the findings outlined in PAMC
Section 18.16.090, Context-Based Design Criteria. The proposed project satisfies the stated
context-based design considerations and findings such as the promotion of walkability by
extending the 12-foot wide sidewalk segment along El Camino Real; providing bike rack amenity
on-site which promotes active transportation options for hotel guests and staff; strongly
connecting the street façade to the sidewalk through re-oriented main lobby access that
provides access off the sidewalk; and retaining the street-facing balcony that helps indicate
habitation and visibility from the street and sidewalk. A review of the projects consistency with
the Context-Based Design Criteria is included in Attachment E.
Performance Criteria
The proposed project is located within a CS zoning district and would therefore be subject to
the performance criteria outlined in PAMC Section 18.23. A review has been performed to
ensure the project’s general compliance with the applicable performance criteria. That
evaluation has been provided in Attachment F.
Parking Requirement
The last approved project for this site (Building Permit #99-1590) on file with the City, dates
back to October 1999. The data summary table of that plan indicates 67 guest units to 67
parking spaces, including four accessible stalls. Of the 63 standard spaces, 25 are indicated as
“compact” stalls that measured 7 feet 6 inches in width as was permitted at that time. The
existing parking lot currently does not provide the required 1:1 off-street parking space per
guestroom parking ratio. The hotel currently has 69 guestrooms and provides 60 parking
spaces, including 57 standard spaces and three accessible spaces. City records do not account
for the existing discrepancy in guestroom to parking space ratio currently present on the lot.
The new project’s scope-of-work includes interior remodeling that would decrease the total
number of guestrooms to 67 and a reduction of three parking spaces to accommodate the
proposed outdoor patio seating resulting in 57 total spaces (54 standard; 3 accessible). The
applicant is proposing to use 8.5 foot by 17.5 foot “uni-class” sized stalls as prescribed for the
parking stall angle (90 degree). In order to meet the required minimum aisle width between
stall lines, the applicant is utilizing a provision in PAMC Section 18.54.040 (h) that allows for up
to two feet of bumper overhang into the planter or landscape area.
Parking Reduction
Parking for this project is based on the 1:1 guest room to parking space ratio per PAMC Section
18.52.040. The project as proposed would provide fewer parking spaces (57 spaces) on-site
3
Packet Pg. 90
2.e
Packet Pg. 31
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
than required (67 spaces) per Municipal Code. As such, the applicant has requested a 15
percent parking reduction to reduce the required parking count by 10 spaces. PAMC Section
18.52.050 allows the Planning Director to approve a parking adjustment when effective
transportation and parking alternatives are provided such as a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program or other innovative strategies intended to site specific reduce
parking demand.
The applicant contracted the services of a transportation planning consultant to create a TDM
plan to reduce and manage the number of single-occupant motor vehicle trips generated by the
project. The consultant performed a peak parking demand analysis that looked at 13 lodging
establishments along the Peninsula that catered to primarily business travelers similar to the
Comfort Inn. The resulting analysis indicated the peak parking demand for the Comfort Inn was
0.62 occupied spaces per occupied room, which was slightly less than the average (0.66)
demand. To ensure the proposed project’s parking could adequately accommodate a higher
parking demand, the higher average was utilized and 100 percent occupancy was assumed
resulting in a projected peak parking demand of 45 vehicles after the remodel. As proposed, the
project would provide 12 more parking spaces than the projected peak parking demand, and
therefore the site’s proposed 57 parking spaces would be expected to be more than sufficient.
Although, the analysis indicates the proposed 57 parking spaces would sufficiently
accommodate peak parking demand, in accordance with PAMC Section 18.52.050 Table, the
applicant has proposed additional TDM strategies to reduce parking demand on-site as
summarized below:
x Transit Subsidy. The hotel will provide monthly bus passes to employees who wish to
commute using public transportation. VTA bus stops are located immediately adjacent
to the project site along El Camino, providing transit services via Local Route 22.
x Taxi or Ride-Share Subsidy. The hotel would provide guests with a $20 subsidy for rides
using a local taxi service or ride-share service (e.g. Uber or Lyft). The project already has
a working relationship with a local taxi service that would aid in this implementation.
x On-Site Bicycle Parking. The project scope includes nine (9) short-term bicycle racks
which will provide up to 18 bicycle spaces on site.
Further details related to the proposed TDM Plan and Parking Study can be found in
Attachment H.
Loading Space
The originally approved project did not provide a dedicated loading space. Current municipal
parking standards require one off-street loading space to be provided for a hotel of this size. As
it exists, the hotel is legal noncomplying and would not be required to provide the off-street
loading space so long as the proposed maintenance and repair (i.e. remodel) of the hotel does
not increase the degree of noncompliance; see PAMC Section 18.70.090. Staff has concluded
3
Packet Pg. 91
2.e
Packet Pg. 32
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
requiring the hotel to comply with the current standard would not be appropriate based on the
limited extent of the proposed remodel work, existing site limitations, and hotel use.
Multi-Modal Access
The proposed project incorporates design aspects meant to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle
environment. The project scope includes nine designated short-term bicycle parking racks
located in the rear of the lot that supports multi-modal transportation options for hotel guests
and staff. Additionally, a portion of the existing landscaped planter area along the southwest
corner of the lot is proposed for partial removal and replacement with a widened concrete
pathway to continue the 12-foot wide sidewalk network along this segment of El Camino Real.
The sidewalk area adjacent to where the building fronts, narrows with the proposed
landscaping acting as a buffer between the building and the public right-of-way. Egress sight-
lines are increased by the proposed notched main lobby entry, which should result in better
visual clearance for drivers exiting the driveway and improved pedestrian safety.
Consistency with Application Findings
Overall, the design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies
with the required Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
Draft findings substantiating how the project satisfied each required finding is provided in
Attachment B.
Environmental Review
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. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of
the CEQA in accordance with Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
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 April 6, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred
on April 9, 2018, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may:
1.Approve the project with modified findings or conditions;
2.Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or
3.Recommend project denial based on revised findings.
3
Packet Pg. 92
2.e
Packet Pg. 33
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information
Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575
phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
x Attachment A: Location Map (JPG)
x Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)
x Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)
x Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)
x Attachment E: Context-Based Design Criteria Compliance (DOCX)
x Attachment F: Performance Criteria (DOCX)
x Attachment G: Applicant's Project Description Letter (PDF)
x Attachment H: Parking Study and TDM Plan (PDF)
x Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX)
4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 93
2.e
Packet Pg. 34
ATTACHMENT F
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public
online and/or 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: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects
2. Scroll down the center of the page and click “View pending projects”
3. Scroll to find “3945 El Camino Real” and click the address link
4. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other
important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4222
2.f
Packet Pg. 35
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 8826)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/7/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 4115 El Camino Real: 7 Unit Mixed-Use (1st Formal)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4115 El Camino Real
(17PLN-00280): Consideration of a Major Architectural Review
of a Proposed Three-Story, 16,726 Square Foot Mixed-Use
Development Comprised of Ground Floor Retail, Second Floor
Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (Seven
Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade Parking.
Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More
Information, Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at
phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org.
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) provide direction
regarding the proposed project’s overall design and its consistency with applicable
design guidelines and continue the project to a date uncertain. No formal action is
requested.
Report Summary
The application is a request for architectural review of a proposed mixed-use development
located between El Camino Real and El Camino Way. The project proposes to replace an
existing restaurant with a three-story development comprised of ground-floor retail space, a
mix of office and residential at the second-story and residential units on the third-story. The
project includes a below-grade parking garage and surface parking for residents. The project as
proposed will require a Director’s Adjustment to allow a nine (9) space parking reduction (19
percent) from the required parking. Although the project is still under staff review to determine
3
Packet Pg. 36
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
compliance with zoning requirements and applicable design guidelines, the applicant has
requested ARB review to obtain initial feedback on the project.
Background
Project Information
Owner: 4115 ECR LLC
Architect: SDG Architects, Inc.
Representative: Jeffrey Potts
Legal Counsel: Not applicable
Property Information
Address: 4115 El Camino Real
Neighborhood: Ventura
Lot Dimensions & Area: 136.54’ to 178.04’ by 99.99’; 15,696 sf
Housing Inventory Site: Yes, realistic capacity of 7 units
Located w/in a Plume: No
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, three (3) protected street trees; one (1) sycamore and (1)
maidenhair along El Camino Real and one (1) Chinese elm along El
Camino Way
Historic Resource(s): No
Existing Improvement(s): 5,231 sf; one-story; 1965
Existing Land Use(s): Retail Use (eating & drinking establishment)
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: CN (Goodwill); PC-5116 (Palo Alto Commons)
West: RM-30 (Emek Beracha religious institution)
East: RM-15 (Barclay Apartments); RM-30 (Camino Court
Apartments)
South: PC-4511 (residential multi-family; PC-3023 (residential
multifamily)
Aerial View of Property:
3
Packet Pg. 37
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Source: Google Maps
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
Context-Based
Design Criteria: Yes; see discussion in report
Downtown Urban
Design Guide: Not applicable
South of Forest Avenue
Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable
Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable
El Camino Real Design
Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes; see discussion in report
Proximity to Residential
Uses or Districts (150'): Not applicable
Located w/in the Airport
Influence Area: Not applicable
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: None
PTC: None
3
Packet Pg. 38
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
HRB: None
ARB: Preliminary Architectural Review on June 15, 2017; staff report -
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58265;
no formal action taken
Project Description
The proposed project would demolish an existing 5,554 square foot (sf) building currently
occupied by Pizz’a Chicago restaurant and construct a three-story, mixed-use development with
underground parking on a 15,696 sf lot in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district.
The building is proposed at the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 residential and
0.5:1 non-residential) permitted for mixed-use development along El Camino Real in the CN
zoning district. The project also includes an additional 1,030 sf in excess of the FAR maximum
as a concession for the provision of a below market rate (BMR) unit, resulting in 16,726 sf of
total floor area for the site.
The mixed-use building is proposed at a height of 39 feet 6 inches, as measured to the top of
the parapet. Rooftop screening for the building’s mechanical equipment would extend the
overall height to 42 feet 6 inches as permitted in the CN zoning district. The site provides 38
total parking spaces; 31 spaces in the sub-grade parking garage accessed off El Camino Real and
seven at-grade surface parking spaces (including four covered one-car garages) to serve the
residential units accessed off El Camino Way. The project proposes the maximum residential
density prescribed for the CN zoning district of seven (7) total residential units including one
BMR unit; four (4) units on the second floor and three (3) units on the third floor.
A previous iteration of the proposed project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) on June 15, 2017. During the meeting, the ARB provided the applicant constructive non-
binding feedback to which the applicant has responded to in the formal application. A summary
of those comments and the applicant’s responses is provided in the following table:
ARB Prescreening Feedback Applicant Response
Screening Along Third-Story Frontage: The
large screened third-story open space area
along El Camino Real visually increases
building volume.
The screened area and supporting beam
have been removed and replaced with a
glass railing system.
Architectural Beams & Columns. The originally
proposed design featured robust beams and
columns that added unnecessary mass to the
building along both frontages.
Many of the beams and columns have been
selectively removed from the design,
particularly at the third-story, resulting in
reduced building mass and a more
articulated profile.
Soften Building Frontage Along El Camino
Way. Landscaping should help screen the
residential garage spaces and soften the
At-grade residential garage layout has been
modified and landscaping increased to
better screen and incorporate the building
3
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
frontage of the building. into the surrounding neighborhood
aesthetic along El Camino Way.
Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview:
The following discretionary applications are being requested:
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 B; the specific project analysis is not included at this time since no action is
taking place.
Director’s Parking Adjustment: The project is providing nine (9) spaces fewer than
required for the proposed site development in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.52,
Parking and Loading Requirements. To address this 19 percent reduction in the total
required parking, the applicant has requested a Director’s Adjustment in accordance
with PAMC Section 18.52.080. The Director’s approval of the adjustment would require
that the applicant prepare and submit a Transit Demand Management (TDM) Plan
proving that the reduction would be commensurate with the permanence,
effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand
effectuated by the alternative programs presented in the plan. This request is within the
Director’s purview.
Analysis1
Neighborhood Setting and Character
The subject site is part of the “Triangle” area identified in the South El Camino Real Guidelines
(South ECR Guidelines) as further described below. This triangular development area is
bordered by El Camino Real and El Camino Way and is unique in that it features parcels that
provide access off both streets and features one- and two-story buildings with more than one
street face. The development pattern of the area provides a village-like setting which the
Comprehensive Plan calls to be further cultivated with future development.
The subject lot is centrally located within the Triangle with the north property line fronting the
intersection at El Camino Way and West Meadow Drive. The lot abuts a vacant one-story retail
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 make alternative findings. A
change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this
report.
3
Packet Pg. 40
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
space directionally to the east (4117 El Camino Real) and the two-story Honeybaked Ham
building to the west (4113 El Camino Real). There is no existing defined pattern of development
in the Triangle area, which creates a disjointed streetscape with some buildings built close to
build-to lines along either street, while others are deeply setback in the middle of the lot or
positioned near either side lot line.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2
The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of
the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and
is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on
projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with
applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Neighborhood Commercial
(CN). Neighborhood Commercial is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping
areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office
uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure
maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. The subject lot is identified in the
Housing Element as a housing inventory site with a realistic capacity of seven (7) housing units.
The findings to approve an Architectural Review application include conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Attachment B; the specific project analysis is not included at
this time as no formal action is being requested from the ARB.
El Camino Design Guidelines
The project is subject to the 1979 El Camino Design Guidelines (ECR) with respect to trees,
signage, architecture and building colors. The ECR Guidelines were intended in part to
encourage landscaping along the El Camino Real extending from Page Mill Road to the southern
city limits. The project’s preliminary landscape plan includes extensive plantings in the common
open space areas located in the rear of the lot along El Camino Way, and in select areas of the
frontage along El Camino Real. Additional landscaping (e.g. planters) could be provided in the
offset portions of the building adjacent to the public right-of-way along El Camino Real. The site
does provide a number of pedestrian friendly amenities including bike racks, benches (and
seating areas), tables, a plaza area, and more than 3,600 sf of landscaped open space areas. The
shared trash area is enclosed and separated from the residential uses as instructed by the ECR
Guidelines.
South ECR Guidelines
The project site is located in the Triangle area that extends from Los Robles Avenue to
Arastradero and West Charleston Roads and is bordered by El Camino Real and El Camino Way.
The South ECR Guidelines state new development should support the Triangle Area District
Vision, emphasizing appropriate scale for new buildings along El Camino Real with street level
2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
3
Packet Pg. 41
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
façades that provide pedestrian amenities and design that creates a coherent streetscape. The
proposed design along El Camino Real features large display windows and pedestrian oriented
features such as a plaza, connecting breezeway, and 12 foot wide sidewalk which is consistent
with the design guidance. Specific guidance is provided for buildings with more than one
streetface, calling for each frontage to be designed with equal care and attention to detail
appropriate relative to the scale and character of each street. The proposed development
features a prominent façade fronting El Camino Real that is taller than the adjacent building on
the abutting lots but comparable with similar mixed-use developments in close proximity to the
subject site (e.g. 4073 & 4131 El Camino Real). The El Camino Way frontage is deeply setback
more than 50 feet from the rear property line and tiered structurally which aids in reducing the
building’s mass and profile from street level.
Zoning Compliance3
The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested
permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance.
Consistency with Application Findings
Draft findings will be prepared when a formal action is requested.
Performance Criteria
The proposed project is located within a CN zoning district and would therefore be subject to
the performance criteria outlined in PAMC Section 18.23. A review has been performed to
ensure the project’s general compliance with the applicable performance criteria. That draft
evaluation has been provided in Attachment C.
Context-Based Design Criteria
The project is subject to the context-based design criteria specified for the CN zoning district as
outlined in PAMC Section 18.16.090(b). A review has been performed to ensure the applicable
design considerations and required criteria have been met. That draft evaluation has been
provided in Attachment D.
Parking Requirement
The proposed mixed-use residential and commercial building provides both at-grade surface
parking and a below-grade garage. The required parking for the project if based on standard
office, retail and residential ratios would result in 51 total required parking spaces. However,
the project proposes seven (7) residential units with one of the units (Unit 4) provided as a
below market rate (BMR) unit as required by the Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements
outlined in PAMC Chapter 16.65. The provision of the BMR unit results in eligibility for
development concessions or incentives pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 (p),
including a by-right parking incentive which modifies the standard parking ratio for residential.
The modified parking ratio results in reducing the required parking to 47 total spaces, including
3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca
3
Packet Pg. 42
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
three accessible stalls. The project as proposed provides 38 total spaces comprised of 31 spaces
located in the below-grade garage and seven (7) at-grade parking spaces provided as three
uncovered stalls and four single-car garages.
As proposed, the project would provide fewer parking spaces (38 spaces) on-site than required
(47 spaces) per Municipal Code. As such, the applicant has requested a 19 percent parking
reduction to reduce the required parking count by nine (9) spaces. PAMC Section 18.52.050
allows the Planning Director to approve a parking adjustment when effective transportation
and parking alternatives are provided such as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program or other innovative strategies intended to site specific reduce parking demand.
The applicant has submitted a TDM plan which has been reviewed by the Transportation
Division. While the Director is generally supportive of the requested parking reduction, given
the sites location along a transportation corridor, significant changes will be required prior to
approval of the TDM plan which may result in the need for additional parking. Should additional
parking be required the applicant may need to explore lift or pit system options to
accommodate any additional required parking.
A review of the project’s consistency with the applicable zoning standards is provided in a
summary table found in Attachment E.
Multi-Modal Access & Parking
The proposed project incorporates design aspects meant to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle
environment. The project scope includes 21 Class I and Class II secure bicycle parking facilities
on-site in the form bike racks, bicycle storage room and individual lockers which supports multi-
modal transportation options for potential retail visitors, office employees and residents of the
building. The proposed breezeway may provide a safe and convenient connecting “shortcut” to
either street. A 12 foot wide sidewalk runs the entire length of the lot along El Camino Real,
providing a clear and inviting pathway for pedestrians.
Architectural Design
The proposed architectural style is contemporary, incorporating wood siding that accents the
light, three-coat stucco exterior finish. Transparent glass rail barriers are utilized along the
second and third-floor balconies on all sides of the building and vertical slated wood panels
provide a screened divide for the outdoor balconies of the residential units facing El Camino
Way. The overall structure is located on the lot closest to El Camino Real. The predominance of
the building frontage is placed on the build-to front setback line between 0-10 feet and the rear
of the building (facing El Camino Way) is setback 52 feet 8 inches to the rear property line. The
building extends nearly the width of the lot, with structure built between 0-5 feet along the
west side property line and approximately five feet to the east property line. The building floor
plan organizes the residential units toward the north side of the structure, with five of the
seven residences facing-out toward El Camino Way.
3
Packet Pg. 43
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
A breezeway is provided at the ground-level between the retail space and the main stair and
elevator, providing a pedestrian pathway between El Camino Real and El Camino Way. The
breezeway will provide protection from the elements and feature pedestrian amenities such as
bike racks and benches. Unfortunately, this breezeway may need to be closed in to meet the
required building and fire standards. While the breezeway is not fully enclosed, the covered
portion runs approximately 55 feet in length, posing a risk to occupants by potentially leading
them to exit into a smoke filled area. Both departments have requested the entry be relocated
to exit out to an uncovered area facing El Camino Real. The applicant has provided a revised
design that will require review from the aforementioned commenting departments. It is
anticipated these issues will be resolved prior to the scheduling of the second formal hearing.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study is being prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
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 May 25, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred
on May 24, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may:
1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions;
2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or
3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information
Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575
phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)
Attachment B: ARB Draft Findings (DOCX)
Attachment C: Performance Criteria (DOCX)
4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 44
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
Attachment D: Context-Based Criteria (DOCX)
Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)
Attachment F: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)
Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX)
3
Packet Pg. 45
3.a
Packet Pg. 46
ATTACHMENT B
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
4115 El Camino Real
17PLN-00280
In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply
with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the
PAMC. Draft findings have not been provided since no formal action has been requested at
this time.
Finding #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.
Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors,
and the general community,
b. 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,
c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district,
d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and
land use designations,
e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent
residential areas.
Finding #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.
Finding #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.).
Finding #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.
Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas
related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning.
3.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment C
Performance Criteria
4115 El Camino Real
17PLN-00280
Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to
be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones.
The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to
surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and
major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance
the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors
and businesses.
Assure that development provides adequate and accessible
interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and
recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash
disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting
residences as is reasonably possible.
The project provides an enclosed trash facility that
will be shared between each of the uses occupying
the building. The trash facility is located away from
residential units, fully enclosed and out of clear
sight from any public right-of-way or neighboring
lots.
To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or
nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways.
The applicant will provide cut sheets of the
proposed lighting to ensure adequate illumination
is provided for safe circulation and are directed
downward to reduce glare and impacts to the
project’s residents.
The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial
businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within
50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with
operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not
limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or
clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick-
up.
The current project proposal does not include
late night uses or activities. Future commercial
tenants that would like this will need to file for
a Conditional Use Permit, as required per the
Zoning Code.
Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with
existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones
(residential properties) should be protected by screening from
public view all mechanical equipment and service areas.
Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the
surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening
between properties where appropriate.
While the project does not abut any residential
properties or properties with existing residential
uses located within non-residential zones, the
project is consistent with the stated performance
criteria in that the proposed landscape plan
provides adequate screens mechanical equipment
areas and integrates the project within the
surrounding neighborhood.
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency
18.23.030 Lighting
18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities
18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping
3.c
Packet Pg. 48
The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration
impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or
properties with existing residential uses located within
nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and
unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting
industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects
should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage
areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus,
and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New
equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or
located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit,
shall also be subject to these requirements.
The stated performance criteria is not applicable
to this residential development project as the
subject lot is located in a residential zone (RM-
15) that does not abut an industrial or
commercially zoned property.
The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent
residentially zoned properties or properties with existing
residential uses located within nonresidential zones.
The project is consistent with the stated
performance criteria in that the proposed parking
layout places the majority of the project’s parking
in the below-grade parking garage and at most,
only three vehicles could be parked at-grade in
uncovered spaces. Those at-grade spaces would
also be partially screened by landscaping from the
public right-of-way.
The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to
minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial
and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle
connections through and adjacent to the project site.
The project is consistent with the stated
performance criteria in that the proposed site
places the driveway access to the commercial uses
along El Camino Real and maintains the existing
curb cut to access the residential units at the
intersection of El Camino Way and West Meadow
Drive. Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity is
enhanced with the proposed breezeway that will
provide a convenient “short cut” to either El
Camino Real or El Camino Way.
The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential
uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air
contaminants.
No proposed uses on the project site would
produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required
to comply with these performance standards.
In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a
development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of
hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess
of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code
Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code.
This is not applicable to the proposed uses
associated with the project.
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency
18.23.070 Parking
18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access
18.23.090 Air Quality
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
3.c
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment D:
Context-Based Design Criteria
4115 El Camino Real (17PLN-00280)
Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this
project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and
evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to
be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of
pedestrian oriented design.
1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian
walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and
connectivity through design elements
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project provides Class I and II bicycle racks and storage
lockers at the ground floor and in the garage to support
the bicycle environment. The breezeway provides a
covered pathway that increases pedestrian connectivity
between El Camino Real and El Camino Way.
2. Street Building Facades
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong
relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to
create an environment that supports and encourages
pedestrian activity through design elements
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project
provides substantial sidewalks to allow for pedestrian ease
of use. The street façade along El Camino Real is primarily
retail storefront windows that support an interior
connection with the street and pedestrians; and the
placement of an open plaza along the El Camino Real
frontage provides a strong connection with the street and
supports accessory outdoor activities on the site. The
metal awning/overhangs at the first-floor will aid in
providing human scale and break up the building mass.
3. Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and
conform to proper setbacks
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
proposed project complies with the CN zone setback
requirements for mixed-use development and the design
incorporates appropriate articulation that helps break-up
the mass of the building. Additionally, the use of balconies
and setting back the top floor reduces the mass of the
building.
4. Low Density Residential Transitions
Where new projects are built abutting existing lower
scale residential development, care shall be taken to
respect the scale and privacy of neighboring
properties
This finding does not apply; the site does not abut a low-
density residential site.
5. Project Open Space
Private and public open space shall be provided so
that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the
site
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project provides open space with private balconies for the
residents and an at-grade plaza, walkways, and open space
areas for all to use.
3.d
Packet Pg. 50
6. Parking Design
Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be
allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or
detract from the pedestrian environment
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project’s parking is primarily located out-of-sight in a
below-grade parking garage. Seven (7) at-grade spaces are
provided, but four (4) are located in single-car garage
spaces and the three (3) uncovered surface parking spaces
are partially screened by landscaping at street-level.
7. Large Multi-Acre Sites
Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that
street, block, and building patterns are consistent with
those of the surrounding neighborhood
The site is less than one acre (.36 acre); this finding does
not apply.
8. Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability
and green building design should be incorporated into
the project
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project is subject to the California Green Building Code
(CalGreen, Tier 2).
3.d
Packet Pg. 51
ATTACHMENT E
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
4115 El Camino Real, 17PLN-00280
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT)
Mixed Use Development Standards
Regulation Required Existing Proposed
Minimum Site Area,
width and depth None
15,696 sf (0.36 acres);
136.54’ to 178.04’ by
99.99’
same
Minimum Front Yard
0-10 feet to create an 8-12
foot effective sidewalk
width (1)(5)
~7 feet
Minimum of 4 feet 5
inches to provide a 12
foot effective sidewalk
width along ECR
Rear Yard
10 feet required for
residential portion N/A 52 feet 8 inches
Interior Side Yards
None
0 setback (west side
yard); ~20 (east side
yard)
6 inches (west); 3 feet
9 inches (east)
Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to
setback on El Camino Real(2) N/A 51% (or 55 feet 3
inches)
Max. Site Coverage
50% (7,848 sf)
5,554 sf 49.7% (7,808 sf)
Max. Building Height 40 feet(3) N/A 39 feet 6 inches
Total Mixed Use FAR
1.0:1(3) (0.5:1 (7,848 sf)
Residential/0.5:1 (7,848 sf)
Commercial)
5,554 sf of non-
residential
7,848 + 1,030 sf BMR(4)
residential / 7,848 sf
non-residential
Daylight Plane for lot
lines abutting one or
more residential zoning
districts
No daylight plane
requirement when not
abutting one or more
residential zoning districts
N/A N/A
Residential Density 15 or 20(6) (0.36 acres =
7 units) N/A 7 units
Landscape/Open Space
Coverage 35% N/A 50% (7,863 sf)
Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit for 6 units or
more (7 units = 1,050 sf) N/A >1,050 sf
(1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of
any required yard.
(2) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage.
(3) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1
(0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential).
(4) PAMC Section 18.15.50 (d)(iv) allows an increase in FAR up to 25 percent or up to the square footage of the restricted affordable
unit, whichever is less.
(5) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage
(6) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre only on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element.
3.e
Packet Pg. 52
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Commercial Land Use Off-Street Vehicle Parking and
Loading Requirements)
Land Use (project sf
and required parking)
Vehicle Bike
Office (2,958 sf) 1 space/250 sf 12 spaces 1 ST / 0 LT
Retail (4,890 sf) 1 space /200 sf 24 spaces 1 ST / 1 LT
Residential(7)
1 BD Unit = 1 space and
1 long-term bike space
3 spaces 0 ST / 3 LT
2 BD Unit = 2 spaces and
1 long-term bike space
4 spaces 0 ST / 2 LT
3 BD Unit = 2 spaces and
1 long-term bike space
4 spaces 0 ST / 2 LT
Loading Space
Requirements
Retail (4,890 sf) 0-4,999 sf = No space required -
Office (2,958 sf) 0-9,999 sf = No space required -
Residential (N/A) N/A -
Total before requested adjustment 47 spaces 2 ST / 8 LT
Requested Director’s parking adjustment (9 spaces) 19% -
Total proposed parking 38 spaces 4 ST / 17 LT
(7) Modified parking ratio per PAMC Section 18.15.050 (a)
3.e
Packet Pg. 53
3.f
Packet Pg. 54
3.f
Packet Pg. 55
ATTACHMENT G
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the
public online and/or 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: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects
2. Scroll down the center of the page and click “View pending projects”
3. Scroll to find “4115 El Camino Real” and click the address link
4. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans and
other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4266
3.g
Packet Pg. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Alexander Lew, Robert
Gooyer, Osma Thompson.
Absent: Chair Furth: Good morning. I call to order the meeting of the Architectural Review Board for May 3, 2018. Oral Communications
Chair Furth: The first time on our agenda is oral communications. This is a time for any member of the
public to speak on a matter on the agenda, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of our board. Is
there anybody who would wish to speak? Seeing no one, we'll go to item 1.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions [Not addressed]
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2),
Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals, and 3) Tentative Future
Agenda items.
Chair Furth: Staff?
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Yes. Just wanted to make a few changes to the tentative
agenda. May 17th, it looks like we're going to be hearing 356 Hawthorne. It's a three-unit project. The
4115 El Camino is going to be moved off to June 7th. That's it for now.
Chair Furth: Before our meeting ends today, perhaps on our last agenda item, let's talk a bit further
about our study session, which is going to be about architectural standards and their impact on
development proposals, particularly in this new PF zone, or housing--Well, we'll talk about that. Height
limits, etc. Thank you. Any questions from anybody? All right.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3406 Hillview Avenue [17PLN-00438]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 62,500 Square Foot R&D Building and Construction of a new two-Story Approximately 82,030 Square Foot Office/R&D Building. This is a Designated Project Under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: A Review of the Mayfield Development
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: May 3, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Agreement Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared in Accordance With the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Research Park (RP-
5(D)). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at
graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Furth: Our first public hearing item is a quasi-judicial public hearing on 3406 Hillview Avenue,
located in the Stanford Research Park. We are being asked for a recommendation on the applicant's request for site and design review to allow demolition of the existing 62,500 square foot research and development building and construction of a new two-story, approximately 82,000 square foot office/research and development building. This is a project that makes use of the additional floor area that can be built under the Mayfield Development Agreement on certain sites. There has been -- this is interestingly phrased -- a review of the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report
has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. The zoning district is Research Park 5(D), which is why it is
a site and design. The project planner is Graham Owen. Has everybody visited the site?
Board Member Lew: Yes.
Board Member Gooyer: Yes.
Board Member Thompson: Yes.
Chair Furth: Everybody has visited the site? Does anybody have any conversations to disclose?
Board Member Lew: No.
Chair Furth: Okay. Staff?
Graham Owen, Project Planner: Thank you, Chair Furth. I've been working with the applicant on 346 Hillview Avenue, which is a site and design review application that's before you today. This is an application, as you mentioned, to demolish the existing 62,000 square foot office/R&D building and construct a new 82,030 square foot office/R&D building, with additional 1,000 square feet of FAR-exempt amenity space. This is a designated project under the Mayfield Development Agreement, and as such, it
follows the Mayfield Development Agreement provisions, as well as the Environmental Impact Report,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan that was prepared with that program. Typically the ARB does
not see site and design review applications solely. They typically see them in conjunction with a PTC
hearing, as well. Per the Mayfield Development Agreement, all designated projects are subject to review
only by the ARB, with a decision to be made by the planning and community environment director, with
the ability to appeal to the City Council. In this case, unless it's appealed, this would be the only body
that would see this application. Just as a brief history of the Mayfield Development Agreement and its
provisions, Stanford University, back in 2004-2005, and the City came to an agreement about a couple
different things. Stanford University was to construct the soccer fields that are located on the Mayfield
site, which is at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. In return, they were also going to construct 250 housing units at two different sites, one on El Camino Real and one on California Avenue. In return, they were able to take the associated square footage that was on those two housing sites and transfer them to other places in the research park. The total amount of replacement square footage is 300,000 square feet. This is a designated project that utilizes the provisions of the Mayfield
Development Agreement. This is the site. This is located at the southwest corner of Hillview and Coyote
Hill. The actual Coyote Hill is immediately adjacent to the site in that open space area. To give you
surrounding context, you have SAP campus that's directly to the south; the VMware campus directly
across the street on Hillview; and Xerox or PARC, which is directly to the north. The subject site was used
by PARC Xerox for many years, but they've since vacated the site, which is a one-story R&D building. I
believe most of their facilities are moving across the street. This is the proposed site plan. It's going from
one story to a two-story office/R&D building with an open floor plan. The project involves one level of
subterranean parking underneath the building, as well as two modules, essentially, of surface parking.
The site's topography, it slopes up to the west, so Hillview is down and the western property line is up.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
There are two grades to the site. I'll go into a little bit further detail about the actual elevation and how it
changes on the site. Essentially, you have compliant parking both in the subterranean garage, as well as
in these two areas, one in the upper area, and one in the lower. This is the grading plan. I'll come back
to this in a second, actually. These are the street-facing elevations. These got kind of clipped, but this is
the east-facing elevation on the top, and the north-facing elevation on the bottom. On the top, the
elevation is facing Hillview, and on the bottom, the elevation is facing Coyote Hill Road. These are the
two elevations that face away from the street. This the west-facing elevation, which is facing towards Coyote Hill property. The one on the bottom is the façade that's facing SAP to the south. Coming back to the grading. There is a substantial amount of grading that would be involved in the project, one, to dig out the subterranean garage, but also owing to the site's topography, which is sloping. Additionally, the site does have, kind of a legacy of hazardous materials that have both been stored and, unfortunately, released on the site, so as a part of the project, there would be a clean-up effort, as well as engineering
fill that would need to be incorporated into the project to bring the site into conformance with the
environmental screening levels for commercial development. As you can see here, the proposed grade is
shown in the dashed line and existing grade to remain as shown with the solid. You can see that there
would be a significant amount of grading if it's associated with the project. This shows the change in
elevation, kind of gives you an idea how the site changes over time compared with the existing condition.
On the top, you're looking at the elevation change, if you were looking at it head on from Hillview. And
then, on the bottom, this is the site section if you're looking at it from the SAP, directly to the south. The
existing condition is shown with the dashed red line. Key issues. Creating landscaping in the Hillside
context, kind of all going in tandem with each other. This is a Hillside site. The zoning on the site is RP-5(D), which is the zoning that we have for the hilly sections of the Research Park. The (D) combining district is the site and design review combining district, which requires that projects be in conformance with the site and design review objections. In addition, this is a site and design review application, but it also requires that the Architectural Review Board meet the ARB findings, which are your standard
findings. These four objectives that are shown here, these are the site and design review objectives that
need to be made in addition to the ARB findings. In a lot of ways, they are similar to the ARB findings,
Comprehensive Plan consistency, ensuring the desirability of investment, and enhances business as well
as enhancing the general area and the neighborhood. Ensuring that it's operated in a conformant manner
with the zoning code. It also, most importantly, adheres to principles of environmental design and
ecological balance, ensuring that those are observed on the site. With that, staff recommends approval of
the project based on the findings, as well as the site and design review objectives, which are contained in
your staff report, subject to the conditions that are in that staff report, as well. I believe the applicant has
a presentation, if you'd like to hear from them. But, if you have any questions...
Chair Furth: Are there any questions from the Board of staff before we open the hearing?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes.
Chair Furth: Board Member Baltay.
Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for the presentation. Is there any limitation on the parking on the site, regarding either the zoning or any other agreements?
Mr. Owen: They do have compliant parking in the sense that it meets our design criteria for parking
standards. They have the numerical count. In terms of the review for the Architectural Review Board's
consideration, the Mayfield Development Agreement does limit the City's purview with regard to
subterranean parking, so they are proposing one level of subterranean parking. We can't require per that
agreement any additional, like an additional layer of subterranean parking, but they have proposed one.
Beyond that, we can't require anything additionally in terms of an additional layer.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm not sure I understand that. To be clear, we could not ask them to put more parking
underground? Two levels?
Mr. Owen: I can read the language of the agreement to you if you'd like.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Chair Furth: That would be good.
Mr. Owen: [Pause.] Okay. Sorry about that. This is page 19 of the Mayfield Development Agreement. I'll
just quote it verbatim where it picks up. This is talking about the limitations on design review, so the
ARBs purview. To quote, pick up mid paragraph where the question comes up: "The City may require
that all or some of the parking on a site be placed underground in order to accommodate the permitted
FAR, including the 25% bonus, but only to implement the creek protection policies and programs
described in..." a section above, "...provided City may not require more than one level of underground parking or underground parking outside of footprint of the proposed building."
Chair Furth: Would you also read the section about materials?
Mr. Owen: Sure, just one second. "The City shall not require landscaping, design, materials, finishes, or building methods which are substantially more expensive (after adjusting for inflation) than those generally used in the Research Park in the ten year period prior to the determination. Stanford shall have
the burden of establishing the greater expense."
Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions before we hear from the applicant? Okay. Applicant, please.
And if you would spell your names for the record because our transcriber often doesn't know. And just as
a note to all of us, in looking over our minutes, it frequently says "crosstalk," so I will try to be alert so
that you can ask to be recognized to speak. Please go ahead.
Tiffany Griego: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Tiffany Griego [spells name], like San Diego.
Thank you, Graham, for that excellent presentation. I'm wowed by your deep knowledge of the Mayfield
Development Agreement, so, thank you. Good morning. I am the managing director of Stanford Research
Park and our team is excited to present to you this project today, at 3406 Hillview Avenue. This obsolete building has reached the end of the useful life. Thank you for all visiting it. I am very proud of this project. I think it's stunning, and we are seeking your approval today to replace it with a modern, sustainable facility to accommodate next generation R&D. This will be the sixth Mayfield Development Agreement project that we've brought to you, and I just wanted to highlight that when we do develop
our R&D buildings pursuant to the Mayfield Development Agreement, we are making a deliberate decision
each time to locate the replacement square footage along corridors that are well served by transit. And
3406 Hillview is really a perfect example. You may not be aware of some of the TDM statistics for this
area of the Research Park that we're now kind of calling the foothills gateway of the Research Park.
Seven long-distance shuttles that Stanford is providing privately in partnership with Tesla, VMWare and
SAP, serve San Jose, San Francisco and the East Bay, and they all drop off at the bus stop right in front
of there, plus they serve other areas of the foothills gateway. We run last-mile shuttles to and from both
Caltrain stations in Palo Alto, which also drop off right there. This site is surrounded by tenants that are
already making full use of our van pool programs and our carpool programs, so the SOV rate by this
robust community of sharing rides back there is lower than the parkwide average. We're really excited to
bring this facility into that context. I just wanted to highlight that for you. We also have really paid a lot of attention to the pedestrian experience and to the beautiful habitat and adjacency to Coyote Hills. Thank you for the opportunity, again. I just want to make sure you're aware, I'm able to answer any questions about our TM programs, or the Research Park in general, or the Mayfield Development
Agreement. Next, I'd like to ask our architect, Jason McCarthy from Studios Architecture, to talk about
the project.
Jason McCarthy, Studios Architecture: Thank you, Tiffany. [spells name] Tiffany did well to introduce the
project. This is really envisioned as a new center of collaboration and innovation in the Research Park,
and what we propose here today is a very forward-looking, very modern facility, very high-performance,
sustainable design, but also very warm and inviting and open, and we think appropriate to its context
within the Research Park, and within Palo Alto. A bit about the site context. I think Graham described it
very well. We're set amongst some of the most innovative companies in the Research Park. It's a
wonderful site, and it's exposure to Coyote Hill and the open space district adjacent to us. [Short pause
due to technical difficulties.] The presence of Coyote Hill on the site really is phenomenal. It's just the
City of Palo Alto Page 5
picture of what you imagine, all the Palo Alto rolling hillside with golden grasses and studded with
beautiful oaks. We really wanted this project to be inspired by that. The project as proposed is an 83,000
square foot two-store R&D office building over a one-story parking garage, as Graham mentioned. The
decision to house a substantial amount of the parking below grade, together with the decision to locate
the building, generally speaking, over the existing footprint of the property to be demolished, those two
moves together really allowed us to develop the architecture and the landscape design that's proposed.
One, where we're able to have stepping in the architecture, substantial landscaped berms and setbacks, significant outdoor amenities spaces, as well as enhanced wayfinding, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, and substantial open space area of natural habitat, if you will. A bit more about the site and its approach. We positioned the building closer to the corner of Coyote Hill and Hillview Avenue to engage with the road, but also to orient the building toward the north, to really capitalize on the sustainable benefits of that, environmental benefits. And, significantly, to really have the front door and
celebrate its relationship to Coyote Hill. Ultimately, Stanford does plan to readdress the project to the
Coyote Hill address. We saw that as a far more substantial identity for the project and really wanted this
building to celebrate its relationship to the hillside, and have the hillside really become part of the
project's identity and the day-to-day experience of the building. On the site circulation diagram, you can
see in the blue lines here the substantial amount of pedestrian walks that we've added. We've improved
and added walks along the site's perimeter, as well as a network of internal walks connecting from the
building to parking areas, as well as connecting out to open space amenities and the bus stop along
Hillview Avenue. A bit about the building's internal organization. We've conceived the building as two
wings, a north and south wing, organized around a central double-height connecting space, a collaborative hub of activity, we think. It's generally a very open and flexible floor plan to support a variety of uses. As you look at the image of the building, this is conceived as a composition of volumes, a dynamic composition of these two bars framing that central glassy spine that's the connecting length between them. And then, the volumes are further articulated with wood panel clad elements that are
adding scale and, in a sense, framing some of those outdoor amenity spaces. This is really proposed to
be a very warm palate, again, very much inspired by the site and the natural materials of the site. We
have a warm gray terra cotta cladding. We have some samples here if you'd like to take a look at those
in a moment. And again, this wood panel is a Prodema rain screen cladding. All very high-performance
systems, thermally broken systems, and a very high visual light transmittance in the glass. It's not a high
reflective glass. Here, a view of the north façade. You can see through our design that each orientation is
highly tailored to its solar exposure, so on the north we've got a lot of glass, really trying to draw light in
and celebrate wonderful views out towards Palo Alto to the north. And then, if you look at the ends of the
building, you'll see the openings are heavily protected with deep roof overhangs, horizontal sun shades at
the windows, and trellis elements at the exterior decks. For the south elevation much smaller openings, obviously protected with horizontal sun shades. Again, just to reiterate on the performance of this project, we're very proud of energy modeling we've achieved. Right now, we're at about 18 percent better than Title 24. We're doing everything above minimum as we can to really get a high-performance project here. And in addition to that, the roofs are really set up to be PV ready. There's a small photoable
tayacaray [phonetic] proposed with the project, but there's room to expand on that substantially. And
then, again, the move to put a lot of the parking below grade has significant sustainability benefits for
the project, including soil, groundwater treatment area, and permeable soil area, and so forth. Jumping
back out to the scale of the neighborhood again, this is the east view of the project. You can see that the
entrance into the garage is well screened by a landscaped berm here, so there's really no impact on the
site from Hillview Avenue from the garage. Again, really, the project is enjoying this wonderful landscape
setback as a foreground, and this spectacular backdrop of Coyote Hill just behind the building. A couple
quick images. As you approach the building, along the pedestrian path up from Coyote Hill Road, across
an outdoor amenity space toward the entry plaza, a view from the main entry plaza into the building. You
see the sawtooth clearstory lighting from the roof, bringing light deep into the building, drawing your eye
into the building. And then, as you walk through the building to the back of the site or to the east, and then down the steps towards the corner of Hillview and Coyote Hill Road, now looking back at the project, getting a sense of how this building is really interacting with the site and inviting a level of use and enjoyment of the site that we think really will make a wonderful project. At this point, I'd like to bring
James Winstead up from the Guzzardo Partnership to talk a little bit further about the landscape design.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
James Winstead, Guzzardo Partnership: Great. Thanks, Jason.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Just a second. We're about to run out of time, but I think it would be important
to hear about the landscape design. So, another three minutes? Would that be enough for you?
Mr. Winstead: That's perfect. Thank you very much. [Spells name.] I'd just like to walk you briefly
through some of the considerations that went into our landscape design. It's already been alluded to, the
connections with that adjacent Coyote Hill open space is something that's really unique here. It's
something we're pretty excited about and used as a cue for much of what we've done inside the rest of the site. What you see here, this is your first chance to experience that as you enter here from the bus stop. Again, we've used the planting to extend habitat in through the site. Quickly here, here are some of the key gathering areas and how we've located them around the building and site. As you come up those stairs from Hillview, they're on the right, and then again, as you come down some stairs from the upper parking deck, there's just some sort of quick seating areas there, giving you a little bit of rest in the
landscape. And then, the main key gathering spaces located around the buildings, where they offer
opportunities for indoor/outdoor activity extensions of the building activity into the site. We're really
excited about that. That seemed like a great opportunity for users to get right outside and really enjoy
the open space. And then, again, highlighted in red here are two second-story roof terraces, similar
indoor/outdoor connection, and then, offering elevated views west to Coyote Hill and east over the Bay,
out towards Mission Peak and some of the East Bay hills. Highlighted here are some of the...We divided
the landscape design into three zones, if you will. Starting in the bottom left with the lighter green color,
we worked with Stanford University biologists to identify existing habitat on this site, which paired down
that lower left corner, and with him to develop a plant palate for how we've expanded that. The yellow-green you see there is an extension of that, around that connection to the open space. And then, we've used him to help us develop a plant palate for this area, utilizing not just California natives, but specifically site-local natives. California bee plant, California compass plant, two examples of that chosen for habitat value. And then, in addition to planting, worked in some stone boulder features and stuff like
that, offering habitat for snakes and lizards and things along those lines. The middle green color that
covers the majority of the site, we've extended the habitat through there, again, still using natives, but
mixing in a couple non-natives that we felt were appropriate to, again, boost habitat value and extend
some of the color and texture further through the season, and then, complementing the native palate.
And then, combining those two areas more than doubles the amount of habitat on site compared to the
existing. And then, the darker green color you see here on the building, we transitioned again to a little
bit more of a formal architectural design around the building. All of this would be low-water use plants
with the exception of a couple areas along the north of the building, and under existing large trees where
we've got some shade and we have some moderate water use, drought-tolerant plant material. Of
course, the irrigation design would be highly-efficient moisture-sensing and set up to receive recycled water when it's available on the site. Your arrival experience, it's going to be addressed off Coyote Hill. This is something that was a priority for us in the design, making sure you had a clear, concise, direct connection to the front door from that entry. We've used these columnar oaks and an accent light fixture that guides you down through that drive, and then, accent paving sort of marks your way there. You
actually enter at Coyote Hill about five feet higher than finished floor, so you have the advantage of a
little bit of a promontory look, right down into the front door. We thought that was a pretty strong
connection that we were able to make here. Quickly, here is a diagram showing some of the shade and
canopy on the site. On the left is the existing, and on the right is the proposed at a 15-year maturity
estimate. We worked with Melvin Arthenia [phonetic], our consulting arborist, and Palo Alto Urban
Forestry to identify key existing trees for preservation, for not only native oaks and redwoods. And then,
we designed a site plan around that. And then, the new plant material and the trees we've used is largely
native oaks, Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, (inaudible) and Black Oak, and working in also California
Buckeye and some other non-natives. Again, boosting habitat with that, and in the end, more than
double the number of trees and more than double the total canopy on the site. I'll leave you guys with
that. We have samples here if you guys would like to see them closer, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Mr. Winstead: Thank you, guys.
Chair Furth: Somebody want to get the materials board? Let's go look.
[The Board briefly left the dais to examine the materials board.]
Chair Furth: Okay, so we've looked at the building materials, and Board Member Thompson has brought
the paving materials and had some questions. Could you hold it up so the public can see it? I think we'll
get where we need to go.
Board Member Thompson: Just some clarification on which paving blocks are going where.
Mr. Winstead: Sure: There's two lighter-color paver samples, and those would be both used in a blend at the plaza areas. Actually, the one in your right hand. Yep. Those two. Those two are blended in a single pattern at the plazas and arrival areas. And then there's the three other square-shaped, darker-gray
colors, and those three colors are all used together in the auto corp [phonetic] plaza. You get a nice, rich
texture, but the pattern helps conceal some tire marks and oil marks, etc., that's inevitable where you
have auto traffic. The smallest chip, that's a sample of the integral color concrete we will be using for
walkways, and then, the walls right around the garage ramp area, those will also have that same color.
And then, not represented in physical samples, but the retaining walls throughout the rest of the site
would largely be gravity block concrete block in a brown and gray color blend. I'll talk about it in a sec.
And then, no higher than 30 inches in any situation, and then, planted against to hide them. And that last
little sample you held up are these black/gray river rocks that we're using adjacent to the entry plaza that
brings you in the front door, and then, straight through the glass volume, out to the other side on the
east. Along the walkway we have river rocks with planter pots.
Chair Furth: Thank you for explaining that. I have no cards from members of the public, but is there anybody who would like to comment on this proposal? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Board. Any additional questions before we deliberate?
Board Member Thompson: Yes, I have one more. Where is the bird-safe glass happening, and where is it not happening on the elevation?
Mr. McCarthy: There's a smaller portion of bird-safe glass on this project along the north elevation. That's
sort of a wainscot height.
Chair Furth: If you could refer us to the elevation page, if that's not too hard, that will help us.
Mr. McCarthy: I can show you on the screen if that helps.
Chair Furth: It will.
Mr. McCarthy: The skirt at the base here is the bird-safe glass. Part of the approach to bird safety on this
project has been to very intentionally make the project more solid at its corners. It's a very deep floor
plate. That's about a 180-foot wide building, so we think there's less likelihood of a bird seeing daylight
through, across to the other side, and trying to go across the mid beam of the project. But, we did
purposely bring more solid elements to the corners so we don't have a lot of conditions of glass to glass at corners. And then, we've added some amount of bird glass more as a spandrel screening element, as well, at the base of that double-height curtain wall. In addition, you'll see that the window openings are much smaller on the south, and on the east and west there's a significant amount of horizontal sun shading and trellis elements we think are likely to act as further deterrent.
Board Member Thompson: Sorry, just to clarify. The horizontal glass that you have is going to happen at
the floor level? It's sort of instead of spandrel?
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Mr. McCarthy: Right, to the 36-inch height level on the ground floor of the north façade.
Board Member Thompson: I see. Okay. Nothing higher, necessarily.
Mr. McCarthy: That's right.
Chair Furth: Any other questions? All right. Robert, if you could begin.
Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I think the building looks very nice. It's well thought out. Everything else.
The elevation, the way I see it here, really does have a nice mix of materials. I guess the biggest concern
I have is that it seems like you concentrated on the east and the west elevations, sort of, I don't know, the north and south elevations just seem not to live up to the same quality, complexity or thought that the other two do. Like I said, all in all, it's a nice building, but I'm just disappointed that those two elevations don't meet the rest of the design.
Chair Furth: Alex.
Board Member Lew: Thank you for the presentation. The drawing set was very clear and very easy to
understand. Thank you for that. I'm generally supportive of the project. The questions I have were,
again, the bird-friendly glazing, and then, also, screening the parking lot from Coyote Hill Road. It seems
like the existing parking lot is kind of exposed to the road, and I was curious about that. I did see some
large shrubs, like coffeeberry and stuff, but I wasn't sure about the extent of it along the frontage and
how visible the cars might be. And then, I also have a question about the grading. It seems like there's a
lot of soil being removed. It seems like it's a challenge in the Research Park, is to get accessibility
working on a hilly site, and it seems to me that's part of the reason why you had to lower the floor level
down compared to the existing building. But, it seemed like the end result is you have to do a lot of
cutting of the grade, and I don't know if you've run the numbers. It doesn't seem like it's a balanced cut-and-fill site. On the various second-floor terraces, I think those are located in good locations, relative to the use. The outdoor patio seating at grade, it seems like a slightly awkward location. In my mind, it seems like, when I was looking at the site, I would have oriented closer to the Coyote Hill, but it seems like there's more area where you've located it currently. I can support the material palate. I was
wondering if you might want pigeon-proofing on your trellises, or some sort of bird, maybe some sort of
bird deterrent up there. And I did want to acknowledge on the landscape design, and you've used a
lot...I've never seen a project with so many oak trees. I think you definitely get a lot of credit for that,
and also taking our native plant finding seriously. You've really thought about it and I think it's very well
considered. Generally, I'm supportive of this. I would think maybe, for staff, I think on some projects,
we've added the bird-friendly glazing requirement in the conditions of approval. The bird-friendly glazing
thing, we have handbooks given to us by third-party people, but we don't have it in any of our design
guidelines, and I don't know if Stanford has it elsewhere in their own design guidelines. I'm hesitant to
put it in. Also, the guidelines that we have are kind of vague. They give general principles, but not a lot
of specifics. For example, they're saying they're only proposing the fritted glass in lower locations, but as I read the guidelines that I have, they want it on the wall façade. I think the façade I would be most concerned about would be the north façade because it's a large amount of glass, and they planted a lot of trees, very desirable habitat trees, there along the north façade. That's where I am. I'm generally supportive of the project.
Chair Furth: Okay. Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for the presentation. Like much of what we see from the
Stanford people, it really is well put together, well thought out. You guys are a good group of architects
and designers, and we really appreciate that. I'm concerned, though. There's two issues here on the big
scale that bother me. I wonder if we could pull up, please, the perspective northeast from the road,
image. It's sheet 1.14. [Locating image.] From the corner of Coyote...That's good, right there. I'm fairly
familiar with this site. I drive through the area frequently. I spent some time walking around the other
day. And it's quite true what you say about people using public transportation, coming in and out of
City of Palo Alto Page 9
buses. A lot of it is centered around that corner. This view is what the public, what Palo Altoans see of
your building, primarily, and this seems to me like the last thing you guys thought about as architects. It
doesn't have, as Robert put it, the interest and the complexity of design that the entrance on the other
side of the building has. In fact, you've set up this access through the building, a split building with a
recessed entrance on one side, which you celebrate very nicely. You've got that opportunity on this side,
and yet, you instead offer this fairly long, arduous-looking staircase, meandering up the hillside with the
ADA-style ramp coming across the other direction. There's none of this celebrating. This is the front door. This is modern technology. This is cutting-edge research. This is what the world offers us. Instead, it looks like a fire staircase going up the side of a building there. Instead, I just see the ends of a trellis way up high. It's not inviting, it's not welcoming, it's certainly not celebrating what we're trying to achieve here. I just feel like it's a lost opportunity for talented architects. Maybe you just lost your focus a little bit and put so much focus on the other side of the building. And I get it. That's important. But, I think you
have the opportunity to do it on both sides of the building successfully, and I think you really have to
address both the view of the building from this particular angle, and you have to re-think the pedestrian
experience once more. Most people coming not by car are going to be coming from this point of view,
this angle, and that's not a staircase I'm going to look forward to walking up on a hot summer day, or a
rainy day, or anything else like that. Secondarily, on the building design, I’m bothered by the 12-foot-tall
mechanical screening concentrated at the front of the building. Well, I say front, but this side of the view.
You can see it here, sticking up high, but there's got to be a better way to re-think your rooftop
mechanical to cut that screen down a lot. I just can't imagine you need a full 12 feet there. I understand
that code allows substantial height for screening, and we want to screen that stuff, but if you could re-think a little bit just how you do your mechanicals and get that down to six feet or something, where it won't be so visible, that would be a huge help. I want to reinforce that I think overall, your design is great, your material palate is attractive and well-thought out, and I echo the comments of my colleagues. But, I really feel that you didn't get it right on the most important public corner of the building. I'd love to
see you take another stab at supplying that same creativity. If I could now shift gears to the landscaping.
Whenever I fly in from out of town, I come across, and wake up finally and look out the window, and
you're seeing these golden-brown California hills. Until you see a golf course, and all of a sudden, there's
a patch of green. That's what I see here. What you have done is landscaped thing right up to the
property line, and it feels like a very competent, workman-like landscaping plan for a typical urban
project, many of what we see from Guzzardo. But, this is a special site. This is on the edge of one of the
nicest natural areas we have. I don't see any sense of inspiration, any sense of, "Hey, let's take this to
the next level. Can we do a landscaping that really, like, we spent time out on Coyote Hill, and we
thought about how those trees naturally cluster." They don't naturally grow uniformly across the site.
There's something more to it than that. I'm not a landscape architect, but when I look at this, it just feels to me like you sort of plopped trees in a fairly distributed pattern. There's one corner of the site that you tried to sort of allude to with natural grasses and stuff, but it's not really...There's no inspiration for great design. This is just working with the team, doing a good job. I'd like to think on a project like this, we're trying to get to...This is world-class, cutting-edge research, and yet, this is just workman-like landscape
design, in my opinion. I'll address the Stanford people as well on this. If you gave them a little more
room to work by putting more of the parking underground. I understand it's not required to do that, but
if you were to do that, you might find that it's not as expensive as you think. The parking you've put
there needs a lot of grading and a lot of site work, and that would give a lot more room to let the site
naturally integrate with Coyote Hill. Coyote Hill is right behind this site, and if you didn't have the parking
lot with the required landscaping and screening on it, you would really free up landscape architects to do
a world-class, something that you see in the magazines kind of architecture, which is what we really
want. You also have the opportunity to take the storm drainage system, and not just to bury it in some
sort of spaces next to the parking area, but rather, celebrate it. Again, do something that people see
what it is, we show what it is. We show that we're not just meeting minimum standards, but we're taking
them and going way beyond it. You guys are good landscape architects, and I'm sure if you're...A little more space, a little bit of effort on the creativity, you can do a lot better than this. That's sort of what I’m pushing for. I see this as a really special site. It's a spectacular setting, and I'm hoping we can get a real inspired design response to match to that. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Board Member Thompson: Hi, there. Again, thank you for a really good presentation, and I appreciate
my board members' comments. I think, you know, a lot of really important things have already been said.
Yeah, I will echo some of the things, maybe rephrase a little bit. The entryway was also one thing that I
had thought about. Currently, not that the existing architecture is something (inaudible), but currently,
there is some facing of the street with the existing, and it's true that this corner, there is an entry
architectural feature that might be missing. There's a lot of opportunities already embedded in the
architecture, the celebration of the outside, and I think the architecture can utilize things like sliding glass doors, having some inside-outside relationships that I think have begun in this design. Like, even in the terraces. Currently, there's just like a three-foot swing door onto them, but there might be some really nice opportunities, not only on the terraces, but on the ground level, to sort of integrate this inside-outside concept that you guys have been talking about. That might help with the entry and bring some natural air in. But, I do appreciate the attention you paid to the orientation. I feel similarly about the bird-
safe glass. There are products out there, films that are invisible to the human eye that birds can see, that
maybe you might consider as bird-proofing. That way, it doesn’t affect too much. I mean, I’m not sure
the details of all these products, but I've seen presentations. There's a way to keep your aesthetic and
still actually be responsible to the environment and the birds around. I would encourage you to look at
that. I like most of your material palate. I'm not too jazzed about the terracotta panel. I understand
you're attempting to create a foil from your Prodema, and something different, but I think part of the
reason the other façade, like the south façade, doesn't seem to appeal as visually is because this material
isn't fighting for your design in the way I feel like it could. Not to say to change the material, but maybe
something else. Maybe a different shade, a different color, a different texture. Still keep terracotta. I appreciate the thermal properties. Those are important. But, aesthetically, right now, I don't know that it's fighting for you in the way that all these other materials are. I had a question about bio swales, but I think that may have been what Board Member Baltay was talking about, celebrating storm retention. I think a good, important thing. The project is really lovely. I think you've come a long way. I think it's
really close, actually. There's just a few more things, I think, that could have a good look at, and I think
you can get there. Thanks.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. It's a beautiful site. I hadn't been there for a
while, and I spent some time looking at the other buildings in the area. One of the things that struck me
about Xerox PARC, you know, legendary, intellectually, is that when you get there, what you see is a
parking lot. A lot of parking lot. I would hope that we would avoid that in this case. It does seem to me
to be a pretty building. I don't have any adverse feelings about the materials. I do share the point of
view that the southern perspective doesn't look good. I realize you're not planning to put pedestrians
through there. It's apparently bicycles, cars, deliveries. To a certain extent, it's the back side of the
building. But, you do have a drive going through there. There will be people going through there. And I’m
not sure what would make it better. I do think the landscaping it's drawing is not doing it any favors. This is probably for staff. I know we have parking lot shading requirements, and I know we tend to get a lot of these little rectangular, let's push it out and stick a tree in here thing. Which doesn't work very well when you're right next to Coyote Hill. It seems very checkerboard. It's not that I don't think you can have
formal plantings near wild areas, or semi-wild, long-ago converted to European grass areas. But, I do
think that it's particularly unfortunate here. I also think the very low landscaping adjacent to the building
is not doing it any favors, and I don't think the trees are enough. I think that needs more landscaping
attention to meet our standards. Otherwise, I must say, the landscaping is heavenly as a whole-hearted
engagement with our notion, the City's requirement that we have landscaping that's good habitat for
non-humans. I also like the sort of smears of color that you've added along the stairway. It's not quite
burly marks [phonetic], but it's exciting. I do also think that that's a very uninviting staircase and not one
I would want to head up. I think it will become inviting. I mean, theoretically, you're walking through
wonderful plants, but it will become inviting if it has seriously attractive to seating that I can see from
below, so I know it's going to be there. Maybe you have a water fountain. Definitely you have a place I
can pause in the shade. But, I think that that element, which is important, needs to become an attractive thing to walk up or down, which it isn't yet. Both physically attractive so that I'll feel confident that if I need to stop part way, I can do that. If I see somebody I want to talk before we get together with the people already in the building, I can do that. It's a lost opportunity as it presently stands, and I also think it doesn't meet our standards for those things. I'd like to hear from you in a minute or two about the
City of Palo Alto Page 11
drainage as it works on the site. I am very fond of visible bio swales. I think they're really...It's good to
see visible solar-generating equipment, and it's nice to be able to tell that the architect thought about
which way am I facing. It's really useful to be able to see, this is how we handle drainage. I'd like to
know a little bit more about the contamination on this site and what that's requiring of you. Looking at
where the site is, I'm guessing it's contamination from this site to the site, but I don't know. Maybe it was
up the slope the other direction. On bird safety, I think it's important that the birds be safe. I'm not sure
how best to get that. And then, the other thing I've been thinking about is, when you sit in the seating area, I, like my colleagues, wish that you could pull the parking further back from Coyote Hill's reserved area, so that it could flow. And it may be that we don't understand how what looks like a quite degraded area is going to be planted in a way so that Coyote Hill seems to flow down into this property. I think that's what you're saying it's going to do, and if that's so, I think that's a good thing to do there. But, you have such a narrow border on the parking area that that's quite a challenge. What I was going to ask you
is, have you made sure that when you're seated in the area that looks toward the parking lot and Coyote
Hill, the landscaping assures that I'm looking at landscaping Coyote Hill, not a bunch of gleaming
automobiles. I'm looking at 1.12 and it looks like I'm going to look at a bunch of automobiles, but that
may be because I don't see all the slope and the landscaping on it. And then, the final thing -- and this
was partly a question to my colleagues -- we have cars driving up and down across that pedestrian
pathway, and maybe there's just nothing to be done about that. I mean, maybe you put in bollards to
narrow and slow it. I'm looking at 1.09, where I come down from the parking lot...
Board Member Lew: You're talking about the entrance plaza.
Chair Furth: Yeah, right. And it looks like we have cars going up and down. It's a bit of a tight curve visually. I'm concerned that that sets up a lot of conflicts that I don't think, in this plan, seem to have been addressed sufficiently so that we have good safety. We've raised a lot of questions. Are there questions we'd like to ask of the applicant? I would like to know about the drainage on site. Is it possible to use bio swales? Any other questions?
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I have a question about passive ventilation and other kind of ventilation
techniques for the underground parking garage.
Chair Furth: Okay. Anything else you want to ask the applicant about?
Vice Chair Baltay: (inaudible)
Chair Furth: Sure. We'd like to hear from the landscape architect. Anything else? Okay. If whoever is
appropriate could talk to us about the on-site drainage, the possible use of bio swales, passive ventilation
as a technique used or not used in this building, and just a response to our comments on landscaping.
That would be helpful. Thank you.
Board Member Lew: You'd also asked about soil contamination and environmental...
Chair Furth: Oh, tell us a little bit more about the soil contamination issues you're working with and around. Maybe you want to start there.
Board Member Thompson: Oh, I had one more question on protected trees.
Chair Furth: I beg your pardon, Osma?
Board Member Thompson: A question on protected trees and...
Chair Furth: Oh, sure, we can talk about that. And their removal. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Griego: The prior occupants for the last five decades of the property were Xerox PARC and their
subsidiary, DPECS [phonetic]. They utilized in their first floor an on-grade HVAC system, chemical
City of Palo Alto Page 12
storage, an acid waste neutralization system, and they have an outdoor utility plant that you probably
saw when you toured. It's pretty substantial. It's actually massive. As part of their facility closure process
as they leave the site, they are doing all of their measures to characterize the site and try to leave and
return the site to us in as clean of a condition as possible. There was a necessity to do some Phase II soil
sampling, and there was one hit that demonstrated VOCs exceeding the commercial screen levels. The
site is not under a DTSC order today, and it is our norm when we take back a site to fully characterize
the site through a Phase II soil sampling program to determine the extent of an issue. As we sit here today, it is not characterized fully, and it can't be until the building is demolished. And then, if there were a more extensive problem, we would turn in the results to the DTSC and work with them to figure out what we do. We hold ourselves and our tenants to a standard in which we remediate to a residential standard, which is higher than others would be required to do in a commercial setting. That's the norm here. Hopefully, that answers the question, but there are some unknowns as we sit here today, but we
know we have to do a full characterization process.
Chair Furth: This is not one of the sites we often deal with, where they're in the midst of a plume moving
across the entire site. This is site-specific contamination from specific operations that may not have
migrated a great distance.
Ms. Griego: Right. That is our going-in assumption.
Chair Furth: That is what we hope.
Ms. Griego: Yes.
Chair Furth: I have seen your leases. You're right.
Ms. Griego: We're hard core.
Chair Furth: They put quite a heavy burden on the tenant to clean up.
Ms. Griego: Yes.
Chair Furth: Yeah, thank you for that. Drainage, bio swale? Protected trees?
Mr. Winstead: Can you guys see the mouse hand moving around on the screen?
Chair Furth: Yes.
Mr. Winstead: Okay.
Chair Furth: We have small screens.
Mr. Winstead: Yeah, it's kind of far away from me, too. Just quickly, I can walk you through where the
stormwater treatment is typically located, and for the large part, it's distributed around the site, which
lowers the burden of infrastructure to get the water there. And then, we've worked it into the grading so
there's no unique retaining conditions or anything like that, to satisfy the depression that you need for
the treatment areas. Right here, that takes some roof water. There's one here that catches the upper
parking area. There's one here that catches some of the water from the side of the building, and one up
here near the signage area that catches most of this stormwater that comes off the road. Another one here, and the last one down here that catches most of the water coming down hill off of this. On this site, yeah, you know, divided them up where they seemed appropriate, again, to lower the infrastructure required for them. And then, again, our approach here was to plant right through them and blur the edge of them and let them almost become indistinguishable from the rest of the landscape, which we're trying
to create something that was more, again, as was talked earlier. You know, like, this line at the back of
the site between the open space and ours, that would be mostly invisible by the end, when the project is
City of Palo Alto Page 13
done and the planting is mature. And then, bringing that around through the frontage here so that, there
happens to be stormwater treatment underneath the plant material, but it's really just integrated into the
overall landscape vision there.
Chair Furth: Does the stormwater, explain to me a little bit more what your facilities are. How you're
treating it, where it's going. Is it all percolating back in on site? Is it going into storm drains? What's up?
Mr. Winstead: Gravity flows into the basin, flows through the soil and gravel, and at the bottom, it is then
treated by the plant material that's growing in there, and then it's released out into the stormwater system as clean water.
Chair Furth: Further questions in this area? Did staff have a comment? Okay.
Board Member Lew: I have questions about the screening of the parking lot from Coyote Road.
Chair Furth: Right. The question about what one would see driving up or down Coyote Road with respect
to the parking lot.
Mr. Winstead: Sure. This area here, I think, this parking as you come in along the entry drive from, like,
maybe these cars here would probably be the only ones that I think would be close enough to be of
concern. I'm sorry...
Chair Furth: From Coyote or from...?
Mr. Winstead: From Coyote, right here. Those are the closest ones to Coyote Road, would be this, I think
it's nine or 12 cars there. That's too far away for me to see right now. The planting we have in here is
actually going to be quit substantial, and there's a little bit of a grade change, as well. I don't think that
these would be at all visible to the passerby. I mean, if you're looking for them, of course you can find
them, but the visual impact there I think would be quite minimal. And then, there was also a comment, I think, as you're sitting out on these gathering areas, looking up the hill, you are, in plan, you're looking over the parking lot. This is relatively a significant slope, and then, again, it will be substantially planted. I don't think you would have any sense that there's cars up here unless you know already that they were there. The cars will be screened by the plant material that covers the actual car, and then, beyond them,
into the open space above. Any visual impact there will be almost negligible.
Chair Furth: There was a question about which are the protected trees that...? First of all, what basically
kinds of trees are they on this side, and which ones would be removed?
Mr. Winstead: The trees typically being removed that are not protected, there's sweet gums that are
along the roadway, there's existing eucalyptus and Monterey pine, many of which are well past their, sort
of healthy lifespan, just to begin with. Of the trees that could be considered protected that are being
removed, there's an existing oak approximately here on the site, and an existing redwood approximately
here on the site. The oak was looked closely at, and actually went out again and took another follow-up
look by our project arborist, and it is in extremely declining health. It's not going to be around, so it's
being removed by the project. Similar for the redwood that's here. It had declining crown and it was in very poor condition.
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Board members, if I may, refer you to page L5.0.
Mr. Winstead: That has the (inaudible).
Chair Furth: Should have mentioned it. Okay. I had a question. Did you refer to columnar oaks?
Mr. Winstead: Columnar oaks.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Chair Furth: When is an oak not an oak, when it's columnar?
Mr. Winstead: There's a bunch of oaks. In this case, it's Hungarian oak, is the one we're using there. If
you think of the native oak, they're much more kind of sprawling in form.
Chair Furth: They are.
Mr. Winstead: It grows, I don't know, almost more like, you could think of, like, a columnar maple, which
is a little more common. It's very upright in form. It's like a red oak in leaf, so it's the five-pointed kind of
leaf instead of the sort of leathery kind of leaf on the native oaks.
Chair Furth: But you do have native oaks as well, no?
Mr. Winstead: We do.
Chair Furth: That you're adding to the project? Could you show me where...? I just want to know that 50
years from now, we'll have something spreading.
Mr. Winstead: Yeah, for sure. Can we flip this page to...? We have the plan...
Chair Furth: We don't want you to think we didn't look at your plans. We did. We don't always get it.
Mr. Winstead: This is just the presentation, but if you go through the actual application packet, we have
the full planting plan in there.
Chair Furth: Right. Right. You do.
Mr. McCarthy: I can't actually read this from here. Sorry. Do we have some middle...?
Chair Furth: Four-point-on is probably the one with the key, but it does take a magnifying glass.
[Locating slide.]
Chair Furth: We don't need to spend a lot of time on this. If you can spot the oaks, that would be great.
Or you could just reassure me that you have agrifolia, or whatever, going on.
Mr. Winstead: (off-microphone) Definitely. We have agrifolia, (inaudible), valley oak, (inaudible). I think those were the four natives that we had. And we have California (inaudible).
Chair Furth: So we have something nice and brown in July, huh?
Mr. Winstead: But it's spread around with everything else.
Chair Furth: That's a wonderful tree.
Mr. Winstead: We have considered that in the design.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there other questions of the landscape architect?
Board Member Thompson: If I can ask a question?
Chair Furth: One of the comments here was that we, were these plantings really going to integrate well
as you look up the hill? Are they going to not look like a golf course? I was partly asking staff. To what
extent to our own parking requirements make it look like a golf course? Could you comment? Both staff
and the applicant?
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Ms. Gerhardt: I think on the parking lot landscaping, we do many times use these sort of finger islands,
as we call them, to bring trees into the parking lot, to provide more shade in that manner. That's
certainly something that we could look further into to make those a little more, not so formal. That's a
detail we could look at. The other question I had is related to the stormwater. I was hearing from the
board members about celebrating stormwater. I just would like some clarification on that, and maybe the
applicant could use some clarification on that, as well. Are we asking for these stormwater features to
potentially happen in the front of the property, if that's physically possible?
Chair Furth: What I understood was visible bio swales. Were their functions clear.
Ms. Gerhardt: Just visible by anyone using the site.
Chair Furth: I think it's usually people on the site who see them, and it's usually different plantings
because they get wet. But, I should let Commissioner Thompson speak for herself.
Board Member Thompson: Usually, they sort of, you know, visually, they look, yeah, they're sort of
different planting, in the sense that they're sort of this remediation planting what's there. And then, I
think also topographically, it's sort of sunk in a little bit, so you know not to walk there. There's kind of an
understanding that this is special, and different, and it's not like all the other landscaping.
Chair Furth: I think we've seen them elsewhere in the Research Park. I'm trying to think over
on...Another project, right?
Mr. McCarthy: Can I just add a comment to the discussion? I think part of the issue is that these
drawings graphically look like this bright-green putting green coming up to the edge of the property line,
and that's not really what we're proposing here. I think if you look at the character of the landscaping
that's represented in the renderings, it is a very naturalistic composition, it's very wild grasses, shrubby, shaggy landscape we're proposing. This isn't a manicured site by any means. And to James's point, the bio swales sort of happen naturally in that composition. They are, in a sense, also shaggy, wild grasses. That's more of our approach to the site in general, that it isn't this very manicured element, but it does need landscaping. You see the substantial landscape setbacks, and we think we're treating them very
elegantly, but not, in a sense, in a very romantic or, I mean, not a very engineered way, but in a more
naturalistic way appropriate to the context. I don't think the site plan diagram helps explain that because
it does have this sort of bright green shock value to it, but the character that you see here really is more
about a natural environment and native species, plantings. And then, I don't think James really spoke to
it, but there are substantial redwoods that we're preserving on the site, and they really do ground this
project and give it a wonderful scale, we think, and a beautiful, sort of framing of the architecture in a
way that, without those, we would be sort of lost, I think. Those are certainly an important thing that we
haven’t really focused on. Those are located here, kind of mid-beam on the building's north façade, so
that helps, we think, break down the scale of that façade. And then, over at the, sort of northwest corner
of the site, a substantial cluster of redwoods are preserved there, as well. And then, some of the, sort of wild oak pieces at the southwest corner are also maintained. Those aren't substantial, but they're still certainly of beautiful character.
Chair Furth: Two more questions. One was about the southern elevation that's in 1.15, and the other one was about the conjunction of automobiles and pedestrians that's shown at the main entry in 1.11. Which,
to me, seems not ideal.
Mr. McCarthy: What we think we've done fairly well here by the numbers is collect the majority of the
parking underneath the building, or immediately adjacent to the building. There is that upper deck of
parking. It's not a substantial amount of the parking, but there are two walks...I'm trying to find my
cursor again. There's a walkway crossing here, and then, a second walk across the entry plaza there. We
think they're well marked. We think they're separated in a way and announced with planting and paving
changes to help make them safer. We can certainly look at some additional signage or elements to
City of Palo Alto Page 16
further that. We were trying to make those pathways, as with the other connecting pathways through the
site, celebrated, in a sense, very comfortable, demarcated from driving surfaces with accented materials.
Chair Furth: I suppose what I'd like to see is a design where people didn't really like to drive through this,
so they're going to the upper parking lot. They came off Coyote, and if they were going to the lower
parking lot, they came off Hillview, so you didn't have as many people driving across it. To me, it still
looks too attractive. We tend to think that wider...We tend to like these as narrow as possible so that
people have the feeling that they need to sit down. Or slow down, rather, I should say. I find myself a little...I don't feel comfortable with this in terms of its...
[crosstalk]
Mr. McCarthy: We actually felt with the garage entrance as close as it is to Hillview, that for the people
who are heading to the garage, they're likely, even if they're coming along Coyote Hill Road, they're likely
to go around to the Hillview entry because it's a fairly graceful access point, once you come in off of
Hillview. We think that the garage positioning, which is taking advantage of the natural topography of the
site, will help facilitate or reduce traffic across the site. Obviously, that's a concern we all have. We have
to have a certain width of lane for the fire emergency vehicles, of course, so that's an important agenda
that we have to balance these concerns with, as well.
Chair Furth: You think you're at the minimum width already?
Mr. McCarthy: Yes, we are.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Any further questions of the applicant or staff?
Board Member Thompson: Could we talk about passive ventilation, or just more operable openings?
Mr. McCarthy: Just briefly about the garage, I think you were asking about the garage originally. It is a mechanically-ventilated garage, so there is a coiling screen door at the east entry that will be the intake area. There are three ports that will have fan-driven exhaust for ventilation of the garage. There's not a lot of traffic in the garage, so the fans are hardly on. At peak loads, they might turn on briefly. As far as the building itself and designing a high-performance R&D facility, we would love to see everyone really
embrace natural ventilation. The design team developed the SLAC visitors entry building, if you know that
project, where we were able to use natural ventilation. It's a very different use, though. They can wear
shorts and tee-shirts and enjoy a little bit more casual environment, and once you get into lab or R&D
program, it does typically require mechanical ventilation and a little bit more robust systems for that. It
becomes highly onerous to make a building that's both mechanically ventilated and naturally ventilated,
so it usually becomes prohibitive unless you can start dropping off some of the mechanical systems to
take advantage of those natural ventilation systems.
Board Member Thompson: There are no operable windows? There's just doors?
Jim Inglis, Stanford: I'll just jump in on the natural ventilation question, because we had recently a
project over at 1450 Page Mill. We had a tenant who wanted to up roll-up doors so that they could bring in the fresh air. What happens is, if you don't wall off the whole area that you're opening up, you will waste a lot of energy. There's very few hours per day that you can actually run that in an energy-efficient way. We had our energy modular actually go through and do hour by hour, and it's surprisingly few hours per day that you can have that open. Once you wall that whole thing off, you've really impacted
what you can do in the space. You can't have that open space. That's part of the issue, too. Just
controlling the energy efficiency. We found that to be very challenging.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Board Member Thompson: Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Mr. McCarthy: If I could add just a couple of comments in response to some of the conversation about
the corner and the north façade. Again, we appreciate all of the comments and we're certainly concerned
about all these issues you've raised. We think we've done an adequate or excellent job. Some of the
issue is in what the renderings show versus what the design shows. So, just to make a point about this
entry stairway. There are trees planned around the seating element at this intermediate landing. We
think this is going to be a very inviting and pleasant walk, in addition to the ramp that's proposed. We
purposely are trying to make the site occupiable and useable and bring people across the site. And, yes, it's a very challenging topographical challenge we have here for this site, to address this grade change, but we think we're doing it in a way that is celebrating the natural and enjoying this natural topography, rather than sort of running away from it. We're bringing people into the site and able to use it, we think.
Chair Furth: When I look at the plan, it says concrete wall/seating bench. Which, to me, indicates, at
least when I look at the drawing, that it doesn't have a back, it doesn't have anything I can put my hands
on to push up from if I need help. So, I would not consider...It's good to know about the trees and the
shading, but I would not consider that the kind of attractive, I could stop and have a brief conversation; I
can sit back and...
Mr. McCarthy: That's a level of amenity we can certainly add.
Chair Furth: I don't think that's a big ask.
Mr. McCarthy: No, no. I just wanted to, you know, defend the, you know, taking occupancy of the corner
is going to be challenging. It's a tough grade change.
Chair Furth: We believe you thought of it. We just always think we have other ideas.
Mr. McCarthy: I appreciate it. We will amplify the amenity on the deck there. Was there also a comment about the south elevation that you had a question...?
Chair Furth: Yeah. When you look at the elevation that you provided us, it looks pretty grim.
Mr. McCarthy: We do see this as an R&D facility. There is an ample amount of daylight and views we're trying to harvest here, but we're also trying to be judicious about openings here. The materials are very
rich and elegant and a high quality. I understand...
Chair Furth: I'm concerned about this six-inch or eight-inch or 10-inch tall landscaping.
Mr. McCarthy: I’m sorry. I gotcha. Again, these renderings may not fully represent the natural character
of the landscaping and the wild grasses that are proposed here. But, I appreciate those comments.
Chair Furth: Okay.
Board Member Gooyer: Could I ask one quick question? Your comment that, well, it's an R&D building, so
it's basically appropriate for that? I mean, that's the way you're coming across, to me.
Mr. McCarthy: No, I don't mean it in that way. In some...
Board Member Gooyer: I mean, if that's the case, you could put a Butler building there and it's good
enough. I mean, you know, and I'm being a bit facetious, obviously, but that's what it sounds like. You've said it now a couple of times; it's an R&D building, so it's what's going on inside, and it's technical, and all this sort of thing. But, we're looking at it from the point of view where somebody walking by who doesn't know what it is, is still going to go, "Wow." Either a mediocre building, or an attractive building.
Mr. McCarthy: I didn't mean that in any way to be demeaning of it. We are very deeply interested in...
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Board Member Gooyer: Then you need to be careful how you present that.
Mr. McCarthy: ...architecture for R&D as being celebratory. I apologize for any tone that (inaudible).
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I mean...
Vice Chair Baltay: I want to, given what you were just saying about, sounds to me like your intention is
going to be to tweak the design of that staircase to somehow make it more inviting. I'd like to come back
and say that if you could somehow focus so the stair came to that middle entry point of the building on
Hillview, I think your design would be a lot more successful. You wouldn't have as much as a grade change, and you have a clear visual cue where you're going to, which is an entrance. Sort of similar to the main entrance on the other side of the building. You could even bring the skylights through to make an internal area there. There's a lot of opportunity to take what we're saying a little bit deeper, and it's
not just tweaking a staircase. Your concept on that corner is not quite right. I really encourage you to
take that seriously. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Okay, any other questions before we...
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I just have one more comment on the south elevation. My concern
wasn't the landscaping as much. I do think it's wise to keep your glazing minimal on that side like you
have. But, I think, yeah, in terms of the material, it does feel kind of like a big, blank wall, in many ways.
And I think part of the reason I expressed my distaste for the terracotta is because I think of, it's
because mainly of its use here. But, I think there's opportunities to sort of make that wall a bit more
interesting, even just keeping the glazing as you have it, but maybe thinking about a different way of
using that material.
Chair Furth: Okay, so, shall we see if somebody has a motion to make, and if we can get consensus on it?
Board Member Lew: I have some comments on findings, first. On page 29 of the packet, Finding #4 about pedestrian and bicycle safety, I think I would add, for staff, I think I might add that one of the curb cuts on Coyote is being removed. And then, also on Hillview, I think the existing sidewalk is being
replaced and a planter strip is being added, so there's more separation between then. And then, also,
they're adding an accessible route where there is currently none on site.
Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Alex, adding an accessible what?
Board Member Lew: Accessible route. Like the ramp. And under Finding #5, which is our native plant
landscaping, I think the draft language says the project's landscaping includes drought-tolerant species,
and I would add that it includes primarily native plant species. And more on the planting plan. I think the
landscape architect has called out the native plants, but there are actually more native plants than
they've called out.
Chair Furth: Okay.
Board Member Lew: Okay. That's all that I have on the findings.
Chair Furth: The request from staff is that we recommend approval. I have heard a number of comments. Does somebody want to try a motion? Don't all leap up at once.
MOTION
Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this project to a date uncertain, subject to the comments
we've made at this meeting.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Board Member Gooyer: I'll second that.
Chair Furth: Discussion? Alex?
Board Member Lew: (inaudible)
Board Member Thompson: That seems pretty reasonable.
Chair Furth: Want to speak to your motion?
Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I wish I could give you a precise list, but I think we've had a pretty wide-ranging
and comprehensive discussion. No, I have nothing else to add.
Chair Furth: I am concerned that we have not pulled ourselves together sufficiently to give clear direction. I could be wrong. Are you all clear over there? Do you have everything you need? A simple yes or no will do.
Male: Yes.
Chair Furth: All right. Staff would like some direction?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, staff would like some direction, if the applicant does not need it. I do have a list of
things that I was writing down. Maybe you could just clarify for us. We were speaking about the corner
of the building, the architecture, but I didn't hear really any specifics on that.
Chair Furth: The first question is, do the majority of us feel that that corner needs more work?
Board Member Gooyer: I don't think it's only that corner. I think it's just the, you know, the building is 85
percent there, and it looks like there were areas where they concentrated on it, and it's not a four-sided
building.
Chair Furth: Your concern would be the southern and western facades? Elevations?
Board Member Gooyer: Basically, the southern and northern sides. And then, obviously, how they connect at the corners.
Chair Furth: I heard a concern that birds, we weren't sure how to address bird safety, but wanted to be sure that it was adequately addressed. That sort of thing.
Ms. Gerhardt: I do have bird-safe glass further in my list here. But what I'm hearing then is that the
street corner of the building is sufficient; it's more the back corner, the southern side?
Chair Furth: I think we should talk about intersections, perhaps. It's the corner of Coyote and Hillview
and the view from that corner, and the way that that part of it works or fails to work. With suggestions
that the staircase be both more attractive and inviting, and it direct the walker to the center of the
building, rather than the corner.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. And I did hear about the other, there's a stairway that leads from the street corner,
adding, maybe there's a, in the middle of the staircase, sort of halfway up, it sounds like there's some
benches, that enhancing that area. And then, where does the staircase end? Maybe it can end at a
different location that's more directed at a front entrance.
Chair Furth: There's an argument that that would strengthen the design. While we're at it, I didn't stop to look to see what the seating is along the frontages along road, but I would be concerned about that.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Board Member Gooyer: From a presentation standpoint, it might be helpful...And I understand you want
to show the building at that corner, so you've taken out the trees that theoretically would be there.
Maybe you need to make a separate one that says this is what it's actually going to look like with the
trees in place when they're accurate, and some of the, you know, what's going on underneath those
trees, and not worry about the building. And then, show us one what the corner looks like.
Chair Furth: And then, does anybody else share my concern with the intersection of the pedestrians and
the cars at the entrance to the building and the parking lot? Everybody else is fine? So, you don't need to worry about that.
Board Member Thompson: I think, following up in general, just having the renders be more representative of your design intent, so that we're able to understand exactly what you guys are going
for.
Ms. Gerhardt: On the southern elevation, I think probably the perspective, again, could it be enhanced to
show more reality of what that landscaping is going to look like? But then, there were some comments
about material uses on that side.
Chair Furth: That was a comment from Osma. Does anybody share that concern?
Board Member Gooyer: Well, I mean, this is sort of the classic building where, at least the design looks
like it was designed for three sides, and the fourth one is just sort of, well, that's the back side, it's not
that big a deal. You even call it the service yard. I mean, it just shows that in your whole concept of
thinking, this is definitely the back side of the building and it's not that critical. I'm not saying it has to be
magnificent, but I think it has to...Because if you put this next to the other three, I mean, if you're in the
profession, you understand it, but if you're a layman, you might not even equate that those two buildings are the same, or those two views are of the same building.
Mr. McCarthy: It might be helpful if I could reiterate what I think you felt was successful here on the west and east façade, was that there was sort of a significant level of scale.
Board Member Gooyer: Right. When you compare this façade to that...
[crosstalk]
Mr. McCarthy: ... and dynamic composition...
Board Member Gooyer: ...south façade, it's not even close.
Mr. McCarthy: We can take some more of this character and apply it to the south and the north facades,
so there are some more level of scales and interest. Is that a safe way to interpret?
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, definitely not the other way around.
Chair Furth: I think you're getting a lot of nods in the affirmative on that.
Board Member Thompson: Yes.
Mr. McCarthy: If we can do that, we'll also look at the height of the roof screen. We heard that comment.
We do think we're going to be able to lower that, probably not to six feet, but we've been pushing on that height already. That's promising, we think. And then, we will look at the entry walks and stairs from the corner to see how we can make that more amenable, or adjust the renderings to show the landscaping that might not be of the character that we're really proposing here. Sometimes that's a difficult thing to get to look right.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Chair Furth: And we're not pushing for more glass on the southern frontage. We appreciate the fact that
it's the south.
Board Member Gooyer: Let me ask. One of the things we've had various conversations over the weeks as
far as the whole idea of a bottom, middle and top, and the south and north facades really don't have
that, any consideration, and the other two do.
Vice Chair Baltay: Robert, I want to be clear that that guideline is really from the El Camino Real design
guidelines.
Board Member Gooyer: I understand that. I'm not saying that it has to be. I'm just curious. Okay, then, forget about it. Okay.
Vice Chair Baltay: No, a good building has, that's one technique to handsome building, but I don't know if
we want to start setting that as a standard.
Board Member Gooyer: No, no, no, I'm just saying because the two other sides really emphasize that,
that there should be some...Okay.
Board Member Thompson: I think, in general, it's a breakdown of scale, I think is appreciated.
Ms. Gerhardt: I just wanted to continue down my list. We talked about celebrating stormwater, and that
may just be a diagram that we need to put in the plans to show where those features are.
Chair Furth: We just want to see some juncus.
Board Member Lew: You want to see some what?
Chair Furth: Oh, juncus is typically what people plant in these areas. Something of a joke. Just that the
planning cues use, that there's sometimes more water.
Ms. Gerhardt: There was conversation about the finger islands. Is that something that we're concerned about? In the parking lot?
Chair Furth: No. We thought it's a difficult constraint for the landscape architects to work with.
Board Member Lew: If you go up and down Sand Hill Road, all the oak trees that are planted along,
they're all planted in a grid. When I worked at the Stanford planning office, somebody was kind of
suspect about it, and they went out there with a tape measure and measured all of them, and they
figured they're actually all perfectly spaced. But you don't notice it at all when you're going down the
street. That's partly the tree species. If they were palm trees, you would notice it, but you don't notice it
when they're oak trees.
Chair Furth: Over time they create their own spaces. Well, I think we have probably said as much as is
going to be useful. Can we vote on this? The motion was made by Board Member Baltay, seconded by
Board Member Gooyer. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed? Passes 5-0.
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A DATE UNCERTAIN PASSES 5-0
Chair Furth: Thank you very much for your presentation. We look forward to seeing the building again.
Five-minute break and we'll go to our next item.
[The Board took a short break.]
Study Session
City of Palo Alto Page 22
3. 565 Hamilton (18PLN-00067): Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a
Proposed Three-Story, Approximately 29,900 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development
Comprised of Ground Floor Office and Residential, Second Floor Office and
Residential, Third Floor Residential (19 Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade
Parking Level. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will
be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District:
CD-C(P) & RM-40 (Downtown Commercial and High Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Haleigh King at Haleigh.King@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Furth: Good morning. We're back in session, and we are on item number 3 in our agenda, which is request for preliminary architectural review of a proposed three-story, approximately 29,000 square foot
mixed-use development, with ground floor office and residential, second floor office and residential, third
floor residential, 19 residential units in total, with below-grade parking. The environmental assessment is
that this is not a project. I will let staff explain why not. Involves the demolition of three existing
residential structures. Oh, this is not a project because it's preliminary review. Sorry. I was thinking you
were saying the whole project. The zoning is combined. These parcels have two different zones on them.
One is CD-C(P), that's industry and commercial downtown, commercial pedestrian overlay, or something,
and RM-40. Our project planner is Haleigh King. Ms. King?
Haleigh King, Project Planner: Good morning, members of the Board. My name is Haleigh King, and I am
the project planner for this preliminary review application at 565 Hamilton. As Chair Furth mentioned, this
is a preliminary review, so no formal action will be taken today. The purpose is for the Board to provide feedback to the applicant for the project direction as it's presented to you. The project site is located on the corner of Hamilton and Webster, at the eastern end of downtown. Currently, the project site is three separate units with split zoning. The applicant is proposing to merge the three lots to create one 22,000 square foot lot and maintain the current zoning, which is CD-C(P), Commercial Downtown with Pedestrian
Overlay, and RM-40, that corner portion there. The proposed building would be mixed use residential and
office on the CD-C side and multifamily residential on the RM-40 side. Office space is proposed at
approximately 7,000 square feet, with a total of 19 residential units. Access to the underground parking
garage would be provided off of a Webster Street entrance, where 39 spaces would be proposed where
66 is required. The current underground parking configuration would be...The applicant would be
requesting parking adjustments through TDM plans, as well as payment into the in-lieu parking for the
portions in the downtown assessment district. The project went to an HRB study session last Thursday
for the main purpose of soliciting feedback as it relates to the historic resource as seen in this image at
530 Webster. It's that Garden Court apartments. So, the HRB looked at the context of the building
adjacent to that. Some of their main comments were around a landscape buffer between the two sites, potential privacy impacts from the upper floors, light intrusion, and looking at a better transition in scale from the 530 Webster to the subject site, including potentially stepping back upper floors. Some key considerations for the Board today include setback requirements. The code gives some discretion to the director, with a recommendation from the ARB for some of the RM-40 setbacks along Hamilton and
Webster. It is pertinent to note that there's a 17-foot special setback along Hamilton for both zoning
districts. And then, a 25-foot arterial setback for the RM-40 portion. However, that is where the discretion
would lie for the Board and the director as it relates to contextual criteria. Again, we're looking for
general project direction as it relates to the context design criteria and pedestrian overlay. Again, no
action is requested today, but we're here to get your feedback for the applicant, for the direction of the
project. Happy to answer any questions. The applicant does have a presentation prepared, as well.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Haleigh? Haleigh, just to clarify, the arterial setback is on
Hamilton, or...?
Ms. King: Correct. Hamilton.
Chair Furth: On Hamilton.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Board Member Lew: I have a question about the setback. I did look at the zoning map for the special
setbacks. I thought my understanding was that there was a seven-foot setback on Hamilton. And then, I
looked on the corner, it seems like the corner does require a 17-foot one. Is it separated by the zoning?
Is it CN versus, or CD versus the RM-40? Or is it actually a line drawn on the map?
Ms. King: It is actually the property. We looked at our just-filed and it does, for some reason, the seven-
foot setback stops at that 555 Hamilton and switches to 17 at 565.
Board Member Lew: Thank you.
Chair Furth: All right, we'd like to hear from the applicant. You have 10 minutes for your presentation, which will start when you're ready to go. If you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber.
Roslyn Cole: Sure. [spells name].
Chair Furth: Thanks. You have to speak very close to these microphones for them to pick you up.
Ms. Cole: Okay. I'll try to speak very closely. Good morning. My name is Roslyn Cole, and I'm a principal
with Aidlin Darling Design, and I'm very happy to be here this morning to get your feedback on our
project. The site that we are sitting at, at the corner of Hamilton and Webster, is a very intriguing site
because it sits at the end of the commercial businesses along Hamilton, and then, the beginning of where
the residential neighborhoods start to the north, the east and the south. It is a true point of transition.
This has informed a number of our project goals, which have been what we have been designing to. First
of all, this point of transition is very important to us. We wanted to create a seamless building that would
really work to transition between the commercial neighbors and the residential neighbors. We're looking
to create a design and massing that fits within the existing context and pays particular attention to respecting the privacy of the neighbors at 530 Webster. One of our goals is to create a biophilic design to not only protect the existing natural environment, to really provide new opportunities for the residences and the pedestrians to have more ability to reconnect with nature. We're interested in creating a building with a strong sense of permanence and timelessness, and to have a building with the materiality that fits
within the neighborhood context, is honest, natural materials, and that really works to the scale of the
human body. Shown here is the site plan. As Haleigh mentioned, there are a number of mandated
setbacks, and then there are also a number of things that we really put upon ourselves that have set our
building footprint. We have our 17-foot setback along Hamilton. Our neighbor is at seven feet, so we're
set 10 feet back from that neighbor. Along Webster, we have set the primary face of our building 20 feet
back when there's this zero to 16-foot setback required, to align our building with the 530 Webster. At
the first floor, our building is set back even further, an additional five feet. Along the northern edge, we
have a 10-foot landscape buffer between us and our northerly neighbor, which actually grows to 18 feet
towards the front of the site. And then, lastly, there are a number of mature redwood trees on the
adjacent parking lot site that we have pulled our building back significantly to respect both the canopy and the root structure of those trees. For the first-floor plan, the office space has been pulled to the far west, adjacent to its commercial neighborhood, and does not take up the full width of the CD-C parcel lot, in order to provide transition to the residential portions of the building. The building is a courtyard building, so we have a central main courtyard that is for the enjoyment of the residents, with an adjacent
exterior space for the use of the offices. This is very visible through a translucent lobby that fronts onto
Hamilton Street. So, the passerby's, the pedestrians and the vehicular traffic can look in and see the
green, but it still provides the privacy for the residences to use that space. As Haleigh mentioned, below-
grade parking is entered through Webster Street. Early on in the project, we looked at locating this on
Hamilton and on Webster and were directed by Planning and Transportation to locate it on the quieter
street. We pulled it away from the corner, and then, 30 feet away from the adjacent neighbor, to enter
into that below-grade parking. On the second floor, the office space directly stacks above the first floor.
And then, the courtyard is ringed with residential units on this floor. We have put as many residential
units on this floor in order to provide more open space on the third floor, where we have opened up to the Webster side to create a shared terrace for the use of the residences. This serves to break down the
City of Palo Alto Page 24
building in scale, which you'll see in the elevation, along this more residential side. It also provides views
to this terrace from the ground floor, which is consistent with out biophilic goals. This is the below-grade
parking, which is shown in your set. It can house 39 cars, as well as 19 of the long-term residential bike
parking and single required long-term bike parking for the offices. We have an alternate below-grade
parking plan that is still under consideration at this point by the flood plain administrator, which would
allow us to use mechanized lifts in the below-grade parking area, which would bring our count up to 59
and serve to park us fully on site after our 10 percent reduction is met. This is still under consideration. Moving to the material palate, these are just some images to represent the direction that we're headed in. We are looking for a very solid base on this building, so we're proposing the use of a board-formed concrete, which has a texture quality to it when seen adjacent to the more smooth plaster and landscaping, which we have fronting each of these walls. These walls pull away and have areas of translucency, such as at the lobby, which is represented by something similar here, where you're able to
look through a space and into the courtyard and the green beyond. On the second floor, we're proposing
cement fiber board panel, which is a very durable material. It works well with the adjacent stucco
buildings but provides a scale through the texture of the material itself, as well as the jointing that is
more relatable to the human scale. Shown also in this image here is the underside of wood soffit and
wood panels. We are using, and proposing to use, cedar wood judiciously through this project, at the
underside of our eves, at the upper terrace trellises for the shared terrace, to crate an outdoor room, not
dissimilar from this upper-left. And, just to add that layer of warmth to the overall palate. This is a
streetscape elevation along Hamilton. We have held our building at 40 feet. We had the ability to go up
to 50 feet on our CDC parcel, but have chosen through our studies to really keep the building at a consistent 40 feet. Shown here against its 50-foot neighbors and a 70-foot tall church is very modest and low-lying in this context. Turning the corner, the building serves as a transition between the 50-foot tall adjacent commercial neighbor, and then, stepping down to the residential neighbor here. You can see in this image, you can start to see the opening and breaking down of the mass of this upper level, which
creates two glassy wings that are enclosed, with a much larger terrace between. Our neighbor, which is a
C-shaped building, has similar-proportioned side wings as proportioned in this upper level, which creates
that C-shape at the third floor. Shown here is the Hamilton Street elevation. You can see that the office
space over on this side is very glassy. We're proposing the use of metal brise-soleil to passively deal with
the solar gain along this side, as well as an upper balcony that delineates the upper limit of that space.
The building itself is broken down into a tripartite massing to bring down the scale. So, again, on the
ground floor, we have the board-formed concrete and glazing looking into the lobby. The central section
of the cement fiber board panels is more solid with punched window openings. And then, the upper level
is intentionally very light and transparent. Turning the corner, the datum of that upper level of the
cement board, the solid panel, starts to align with the existing building at 530 Webster. And then, here again, you can see this wide opening at the center where you're seeing sky, and then our two more glazed wings. We are trying to get as much depth within this façade as we can within our 17-foot setback. As shown here, we have the office space with the metal brise-soleil to provide a sense of texture, as well as a shading element. The balcony, and then the projecting eves, to really try to provide
a little bit of variation. And then, there's the depth, the visual depth as you look into the courtyard. Here
on the corner, you can see the material wrapping the corner. Here, the scale starts to be broken down.
We have two residential units on the lower level that have cedar wood privacy screen, and then, an
opening and a central space. And then, here, shown from Webster, you can see where that datum starts
to really align with the adjacent building, and the top component of the building, the third floor starts to
break down. We met with the Historic Resource Board last week, and one of their questions was about
how our windows might relate to those at 530 Webster. We've added this section to show our
relationship to this building. We have a significant privacy screen between our two buildings, located
here. On the first floor, that privacy screen basically does not allow any gaze over to the adjacent site.
On the second floor, the screening is intended to grow up to the point where we can basically also screen
our views across, and where they're looking at...
Chair Furth: Hi. You have hit your 10 minutes...
Ms. Cole: I have one more slide.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Chair Furth: ...plus, so why don't you show us your last slide, and wind it up. And then, we can ask
questions.
Ms. Cole. Okay, thank you. The third floor looks over. Lastly, just ending on this slide, I just want to say
we're really happy to be here today. It's a very intriguing site. It's an interesting problem, and we look
forward to your comments. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you for your presentation. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak?
Chris Meany, Wilson Meany: Hi. Chris Meany and Brandy Bridges, both with Wilson Meaney, developers of the site. We are not going to use up the time, but are here to answer questions.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I have two public comment cards, comment cards from members of the public. Jeff Levinsky and Roberta Ahlquist? I can't quite read it. Why don't we start with Mr. Levinsky. I should also note that we have two letters, one from Nielson Buchanan [phonetic], and the other one, I do not have to hand. Does somebody have a copy? I've read it, but... The other one, from Beth Rosenthal
[phonetic]. Talk about those in a minute. Go ahead, Mr. Levinsky, you have three minutes. Can you spell
your name for the record?
Jeff Levinsky: I can spell my name. Thank you, good morning. [spells name] I'm here to talk mainly
about the parking problems. First of all, they talk about using in-lieu parking. The in-lieu parking has
various rules associated with it, and I'm not sure this project qualifies for in-lieu parking, whatsoever. The
first rule is about, would the parking have to destroy a substantial or historic structure, and the answer is
no. The second rule is for sites under 10,000, that this is not. The third is for sites over 10,000 but of an
unusual configuration. This is pretty rectangular. The fourth is where it precludes curb cuts. They're
going to have a curb cut. The fifth is where there's some physical constraint which precludes provision without extraordinary expense. No argument has been made what the expense would be that would be required to provide the on-site parking. Another problem is right at the beginning of the in-lieu rule, it says that the City is supposed to have a pool of in-lieu parking spaces that it sells. There is no pool. So, until we have one, any payment to the City won't necessarily create any new parking spaces, so it will
create a problem that violates the Comprehensive Plan's concerns about preventing buildings from
creating parking problems. There was mention of using a TDM to reduce the parking. Properties in the
downtown assessment district are not eligible for TDM's. They can't use that to reduce their parking, so
could only reduce the parking on the residential side by, say, 20 percent, which would be, I think, a
couple, maybe two or three parking spaces is all you could reduce legally there. There's another problem
that we've mentioned before, which is that when you reduce parking on site, you're reducing the number
of accessible parking spaces that will be provided, as well, because that's based on a formula, essentially.
And when you take away that accessible parking spot, where is someone who needs that spot supposed
to go? Right? To tell them they have to go two blocks down into the City garage doesn't help somebody
who needs an accessible parking spot. That's why we put them right next to the elevators and the stairs.
One other thing that I'd like to mention here is that I agree with the comments made that it would be better to have a good transition between this building and the other on Webster, and in looking at the slides and so forth, I hope you all suggest ways that they could make it more compatible, not only about privacy and so forth, those issues, but also so that the one remaining building that we're going to have of
that style and so forth isn't overwhelmed by what this building style looks like. That's it. Thanks very
much.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Roberta Ahlquist?
Roberta Ahlquist: This building is going to replace three small buildings which were used for below-
market-rate housing, a stucco two-story building, which had, I believe, five or six units, and a four-plex,
which were studios, and a one-story shingled house that was recently, that a professor from Stanford
was recently evicted from. These are nine, 10 units of below-market-rate housing in Palo Alto, and being
replaced with office. Palo Alto City Council just said we have plenty of office, we need no more office, we
need housing. None of this is below market. It's a multimillion-dollar project. The plane of light on
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Webster is out of scale. This is out of scale for the neighborhood. The church has all kinds of activities,
night and day, daily. I live nearby. This is not enough parking. My concern is that it's way out of scale,
that we don't need the office space, it's high-income housing. In the spirit of the recent housing overlay
for Palo Alto, I would advocate that you reject this proposal and require in any proposal that below-
market-rate housing exists, and that you look at the houses that exist there currently and notice that
they're perfectly fine, serviceable housing. And to have that below-market-rate housing be replaced by a
way-out-of-scale, out-of-context, too-dense proposal is something that we in the neighborhood do not advocate. Also, just a comment about being vigilant about developments that occur around the downtown. You have to almost be a development cop to keep track. There's no way unless you just happen to drive by or are in the neighborhood, of even knowing that these kinds of proposals go forward. I'm sure you're going to hear from many more neighbors when it's clear that they know about this project. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on this item? You have another 10 minutes to
respond to anything you'd like to raise. Anything further you'd like to say? Or you can just wait for us to
ask questions. If you could re-introduce yourself for the tape.
Mr. Meany: Chris Meany. We are, as Roslyn said, it's still under advisement about whether we can do the
mechanized lifts in the garage. That was our original proposal. We're just looking for clarification of that.
That would allow us to do all parking on site.
Chair Furth: And that's because you're in the flood zone?
Mr. Meany: Yeah.
Chair Furth: And so, your approach would involve...?
Mr. Meany: Putting the...
Chair Furth: ...water barriers?
Mr. Meany: Water barriers, and putting the electrical components above the flood plain level.
Chair Furth: Thank you. That's helpful. Any questions of staff or the applicant? Or the public? Okay. This
is a study session, so it's more informal, and we won't be taking any action today. This is an early chance
for us to look at the proposal and give them our comments before they have made more elaborate plans,
though I'm sure they have spent considerable time on this. I had something for staff, which is that
when... First of all, have all of us looked at this site? When I was looking at this site, I was startled to see
a two luxury flat project that, of course, we didn't see because it's two residential units. I think it's 513
and 515. I just sent you an email with a picture from its frontage. Can you get that up so we can take a
look at it? Did we all see that? Because it's going to change the context. I just emailed it to you.
Ms. King: I don't know that I noticed that.
Board Member Lew: You're talking about the one down the street, the luxury duplex that's been in the
news?
Chair Furth: I am. The luxury duplex, self-described luxury duplex. And I’m sure it's true. It's 515 and 519 Webster. It's designed by Fergus Garber. We'll get it up so the public can see it, but that's a picture of the sign in front of it, which has an elevation.
Ms. King: (inaudible)
Chair Furth: Okay, I'll try again. And this, of course, does not come to ARB. I'll mail it to you. Okay. Let's
start with comments. Who would like to begin? Volunteers? Okay, Peter.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning, and thank you. Very quickly, I have a question about the existing
buildings to the left on Hamilton, where you're saying that it's 44 feet tall. The immediately-adjacent
parapet to that commercial building labeled "Solomon" on the front. I think you could just check those
numbers. It seems to me much less tall than that. You want to be sure because that's visually important
to how your building relates to it. This is a study session. It doesn't really matter right now. But, I
recommend you just be sure you have an accurate understanding of the site. Let me throw to you then
that this is gorgeous architecture. You've got some really interesting spaces, especially that third floor open area overlooking, is it Webster Street? But, I'm concerned that you're just not quite hitting urban design standards that we're looking for. I can throw out two pieces to it that are, have been sort of gnawing away at, trying to understand and get a grip on it. Because it is an attractive-looking building. You have residences on the ground floor at grade, and you're creating some sort of privacy screens to make that work. And yet, what you see around downtown mostly is porches and slight elevation changes,
and an effort to, yes, we have residences, and yes, they're in a more urban area, but also very
pedestrian-oriented. We're constantly striving to get more pedestrian connection and activity -- light,
eyes on the street, Jan Jacobs [phonetic] kind of thing. And yet, what you're doing really doesn't do that.
You're sort of turning your back on that. You're saying this is a private luxury development, we've got a
beautifully-made screened fence, you can't see us and we can't see you. That's because you're at-grade
right across the street from a busy church. You want to do that, perhaps. But, I don't think it's good
urban design. I don't think it's really responding to Palo Alto, to the nature of being at a transition zone
where, really, everybody around you, they do porches, the do more, sort of micro-scale things that
people...Yes, you probably don't sit out there too much, and your neighbors are probably not walking by every day. It's a little bit too urban for that. But still, it's done. You've just not done that. And then, I come to the design of the building as a whole, and Alex has repeatedly pointed out, when you have these very long facades of buildings -- which is what you'll have here; you must be close to 100 feet -- you just accentuate that. Your roof is a single, strong line. Very powerful architectural feature. In some places,
you know, perhaps the site we saw earlier than this, out in Coyote Hill, it would really be stunning. But
here, you're just accentuating again that this is one big development, rather than a small scale of houses.
A textured fabric. An urban character where you differentiate what's an office from a home. And you're
not doing that. You're creating a dramatic architecture, but I don't think it's got the scale and sensitivity
that's appropriate for a residential mixed-use core downtown area kind of space. Those two things have
left me really eager to hear what everybody else on the Board thinks. I guess I'm just uncomfortable with
your overall design concept, more than even the execution of it. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Osma?
Board Member Thompson: I appreciate what Board Member Baltay had to say. I also had a comment
about the façade on the ground. Part of our findings is that it needs to be pedestrian-oriented, and right
now, it's just not, in many ways. I mean, I appreciate the green wall, or I guess it's a concrete wall that has greenery on it. I actually had a hard time trying to find any windows, or entrances, or anything that might relate to the pedestrian experience on that road, which I think is extremely important, especially as it is transitioning into a residential neighborhood. So, in that sense, I would encourage you to explore
some more architectural things you can do to encourage pedestrian activity. I agree, there are many
parts of the design that you have that are really stunning. I think the wood especially provides this great
flash of high-quality material. I take a bit of an issue with the middle band of cement fiber board. I don't
think it's doing you any favors. I understand that you sort of want a foil to your wood, so you're creating
something dark and dense, but as it stands, you know, I can see a precedent image that you have in
your material palate with the cement board. I think that image works because it's partee [phonetic] is
that it's the solid thing, and then you're cutting into it, and the cutting into it is your wood. But, you're
not using it like that in your project. You're kind of using it as a wrap, and it just doesn't work as a wrap.
I think you can find another material that can accomplish the same thing, but is nicer to experience and
look at like the wood. The wood is really nice to experience and look at, and the cement board is just
kind of this opposite thing. I'd also encourage you to look at that. I think maybe it's partially the scale of it, that it just looks very big, and I can see that you're trying to use the paneling to break down the scale, but I think you can do more in terms of texture and in terms of scale on that. And I agree with Board Member Baltay also, the roof. The roof can also...I appreciate the clean lines and stuff, but I don't know
City of Palo Alto Page 28
that it's appropriate for this area. So, yeah, something to look at in terms of the roof and changing them.
I didn't hear much talk in terms of what kind of systems you might be using for sustainability. I did hear
about the brise-soleil on the southern side. That's really great. I think just to develop more conceptual
ideas in terms of how air is passing through, thermal comfort. You do have a lot of glassy areas. You
have some shading, but I think a little bit more conceptually in terms of how this project is operating
sustainable would be good to see in your next presentation. And I did notice a lot of trees on site. It
would be good to know what's happening with those trees right now, what you're proposing. That's also something to look at because it seems like it's quite wooded right now over there. It would be good see. Yeah, those are all my comments for now.
Chair Furth: Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I agree with Peter that, I like the overall concept of the design, the style,
that sort of thing. But also, I was thinking the same thing where, if you walk in on Webster, it looks like
you're passing people's back yards, so to speak. Now, that was done in the 50's or 60's, and again, I
realize that it really doesn't do much for the person walking by. And, this is a downtown area. I like
porches, balconies, that sort of thing there, people sitting outside. Sometimes all it takes is one or two
people to do it, and all of a sudden, more people do it. So, like I said, the concept of the design, I like,
but I think the bulk needs to be, or the perceived bulk needs to be reduced, and also, somewhat more,
maybe segmented is the wrong thing, but make it look like there are three or four smaller pieces, rather
than one large piece. Even if the portion on Hamilton that abuts the neighbor, which is the commercial
portion, can stay probably of that scale, because that is what it is. It's commercial and not residential. I
think the rest of it needs to, you know, do it more of a traditional residential approach. You come in from the outside to the residence, rather than around the back or through the hallway. That sort of thing I think would work. I think it's a good start, but, like I said, based on that. One of the big problems I have with a lot of these things is that -- and one of the speakers said the same thing -- it's all fine and dandy paying an in-lieu fee, but it's just a mythical, theoretical thing. You're not buying spaces. If it was an in-
lieu fee because you're buying these 20 spaces, then it would be something. If I'm renting a place here,
or buying a place here, and I'm told, "You really don't have any parking spaces here, you have to find a
space," or, theoretically, "you're allowed to park in the adjacent parking lot down the street," that's not
going to do it for me. I mean, even if it's down stairs, or whatever the case is, I want to be able to at
least park on my property. Now, maybe the deal is one is on the property, one is not. That's one thing.
But not where it's hit or miss. I just don't think that's going to work. The mechanized systems are getting
much better, so I think that's worth looking into. Just make sure that...You are going to need some
accessible spaces in there, so, I've seen, unfortunately some projects come in where they put the
mechanized units in, and it's eliminated every...You can't really expect somebody in a wheelchair to use
one of those things. Other than, that I think it's going in the right direction.
Chair Furth: Alex.
Board Member Lew: I do want to acknowledge that we've got a great developer and design team on this project. I think of the architect projects that I've seen in San Francisco, are really some of the best buildings in the Bay Area. Really top-notch. Likewise with the developer's projects that I've seen in San
Francisco. Really amazing. Staff asked us to comment on the setback on Webster. I just want to explain
that the intent of the seven-foot special setback on Hamilton and other streets downtown was, the intent
is to widen the streets, and we have widened the streets in many locations, but not on this block. You
can see on Hamilton, those streets have been widened from Ramona to Cowper, and you can see the
seven-foot differential there. And then, on Webster Street, I'm not clear as to what the intent is of the
17-foot, but I think it was meant to be a transition zone between residential and commercial.
Ms. King: Just to clarify, on Webster Street, there is no special setback.
Board Member Lew: It's just a...
Ms. King: It's just a, yeah, zero to 16 foot contextual.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Board Member Lew: Right. And then, I think my comment on that is, I would be willing to reduce that
setback to make the courtyard larger if the proportions of the courtyard worked better. Having a larger
courtyard, I think I would accept that, mostly because, it's kind of at the north...it's not perfect north.
Kind of north-facing. It's kind of shaded. Alternatively, if they had something more like a porch on
Webster, along Webster Street, I would support what's being shown today. We used to have something
in the Comprehensive Plan that really encouraged residential units to have an individual presence on the
street -- balconies, porches, or whatever -- and we have our new comp plan; I don't know if it's still in there, I haven't checked, but we used to have that there. And on projects in the vicinity of downtown, the Board in the past has tried to encourage individual porches and identifies to make it more interesting, and to...One, is to make it more interesting for the pedestrian on the street, and also, two, is just to have more life and interest for each unit. I think I'm in agreement with my other colleagues on the Board about the façade. I think my main concerns are that on the glass lobby on Hamilton, is actually the
quality of the glass. We've had other people try to propose and build these see-through lobbies, and
when I've gone out there, in reality, you're not seeing anything through two layers of reflective glass. It's
possible to do it with low-iron glass, or whatnot, but if you're just using regular glass, you're not able to
see all the way through to the courtyard. It's pretty blurry, given the reflections of the Low-E glass. I
think I agree with Board Member Thompson on the cement board. I'm a little hesitant about the cement
board. Your drawing showed all the glass as being white, but in reality, it's very dark. And you may end
up with, if it's like a gray cement board with very dark gray windows, it may not be so attractive. I would
really encourage you to try to figure out a way to make the building more compatible with the neighbors,
which are fairly warm colors. I do like the wood soffit. I do like that you're trying to align the corniche line with the next-door project on Webster. I would agree with Robert on trying to segment the façade, if possible. I'd be willing to entertain the proposed design that you have if the materials are really stand-out. I've seen your other buildings and I know that you can do it. If anybody can do it, you guys can do it with regard to the materials and design details. I have a question for staff. Roberta Ahlquist had
commented about BMR units, and I was wondering if you would just outline some of our requirements. I
think with court cases, right, if they were proposing rental units, we can't make any requirements for
BMR, for BMR units, I understand. If it's ownership, and the City can, I was wondering if you could
explain that.
Ms. King: Yes, that is correct. The current project is proposing to be rental units, therefore, they aren't
required to provide BMR. However, they do have to pay an affordable housing mitigation fee, impact fee,
yeah.
Board Member Lew: If I recall correctly, would that be, would the amount be in our final submittals?
Ms. King: Yeah, we would have an estimate...
Board Member Lew: It would be an estimate of that.
Ms. King: ...of what that would be, yeah.
Board Member Lew: Okay.
Ms. King: And then, to follow up on your second point, yeah, if they are proposed ownership units, that's when it triggers, I think it's a 25 percent BMR requirement.
Board Member Lew: Thank you for that. On the parking does staff have any comments about Mr.
Levinsky's comments about the rules for the downtown assessment district?
Ms. King: Yeah. For the in-lieu option, it does talk about, it's not physically feasible for this site, the fact
that it is in the flood zone, we would consider that as satisfying that criteria. And then, the CDC portion is
in the downtown, but again, the residential portion is not, so they wouldn't be able to buy spaces for that
site. And you can only buy it for commercial. Obviously, residential would need to be provided completely
on site.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Board Member Lew: Okay, great, thank you.
Chair Furth: Okay, this is a study session, so I'll give you my thoughts, and I hope we have a little more
discussion. Thank you for your presentation. It was well done. I need to judge this building by our
standard that says this needs to improve and enhance the residential experience for people in the
building, and next to it. In terms of context, I regret the loss of existing units which are lower in,
probably quite amortized by now and have lower rents, but that's not our jurisdiction. What I am
concerned about more is the loss. It's interesting that you talked about this being biophilic, because what I'm concerned about is the loss of the large-scale street-fronting landscaping, the depth of that that creates the nature of that corner, that's beautifully maintained. And then, in the back yard, you have this crazy, wonderful..."landscaped" is not the word. Green-and-growing space. It's got orchids, it's got banana trees, it's got a whole bunch of other stuff that I can't remember. It's spectacular. And then, next
to you, if you remove all these existing buildings, you have 530 Webster. And 530 Webster, since I spent
years in exile in Southern California, to me, looks like this little bit of Southern California bungalow court
moved up here. It's got parking garages in the back. I don't know as much about the Northern California
tradition, but that does exactly what we say we want housing to do in a downtown area. It has front
doors that are visible from the street, that are protected from the street, because they are set up a bit,
and they open onto a courtyard. And the landscaping, again, is spectacular. People have wonderful pots
that they obviously pay attention to. Admittedly, it's green carpet in some of the higher-use areas, but
the overall impression is inviting, it's romantic, it's charming, and it generates oxygen like man. I mean,
that is a lot of planting per square footage. When you go around, its other frontages do not create that
same sense of beauty, and fun, and play, and pleasure. To me, that's what exists there. That's what needs to be protected. It's got the City's parking garage, and admittedly, that parking garage has more interesting landscaping elements as it gets to the street and over the building than most of our parking garages, but it's still a parking garage. You've got the mammoth Methodist Church, which is heavily used for concerts. So, you are going to have hundreds of people walking in the dark, on that corner, back and
forth across that street. You need more than the minimum to accommodate the flow of what happens
there. I was particularly interested, not in how this compares to the required setbacks, but how it
compares to the existing setbacks, because I think this needs major landscaping that is street-friendly.
One of the things about the design about 530 is it's generous to the community. This design, with its
interior courtyards, which increase the perceived mass and volume of the building, is not generous. And
looking through a glass lobby with my nose up against the door, saying, "Oh, look at their private green
space," is not at all the same. I think we need ground-floor units that engage the street. They need to be
set back far enough to do that. They need to not be walled off. We have some other buildings in town
that use that walled-off approach. They don't flourish, and neither does the street. If you can go look
further down Webster opposite Webster House, you'll see an unsuccessful example of this. Not to (inaudible) any particular building. I do think it's completely appropriate and necessary for it to look like it's built now. I'm not expecting you to evoke a past era. I mean, which one would you evoke on that corner? It needs to be your good, contemporary design, but you need a different project, in my view. I think it needs to flip. I think more of that green and open space needs to engage both the street and the
units. I was having a little trouble identifying the commercial as commercial, so that concerns me, the
two different uses. We keep expelling all our psychotherapists from their small buildings, and I don't
know what, you know, this is at least not going to be huge plate tech. I don't know how you plan to use
it, but I hope it looks subtle. Clearly, this is non-commercial. It's not clear when I look at this building
how I get there. That's a problem. We support this kind of interior courtyard, and I think we're almost
always in favor of upper terraces unless they look over somebody else's back yard. When they're on a
high-impact street like El Camino, and you cannot have attractive, useful -- Who wants to garden on El
Camino? Very few people. You have to pay people to do that, and they wear ear protectors. This clearly
is a street where people like to garden when they have the chance. So, I would urge you to rethink this
so that we have a building that is, in fact, got some rampant landscaping, and not the more industrial
landscaping that this might involve. I'm also interested in knowing how -- and I'm sure you've thought this through, but I would like the drawings to show us -- how the street tree canopies interact. Because when we go up, we sometimes get problems. So, if we have spreading trees that we have back in order to accommodate buildings. I would like to know that those trees, which are much needed there, can be.
The other buildings pull back a bit from the corner, I think, in reference to the -- I think they do -- the
City of Palo Alto Page 31
heavy pedestrian traffic. I don't think that Hamilton drawing is quite accurate, but maybe it is. I'd like to
know that it's going to acknowledge the fact that people accumulate on those corners as they wait to
cross the street, chattering about what they're going to or what they're coming from. As I was saying,
530 Webster is not going to be well served by 515, 519 Webster, which is the project that's going up
without benefit of our comment. It has a challenge with the church, which I think is obviated a bit by the
fact that that's a sociable neighborhood use, it's a community resource. So, your building needs to treat
that building like a favored, like an aunt you're fond of. You need to take care of it, I think. Okay. That's my rant.
Board Member Lew: Could you clarify your criticism of 515 and 519 Webster Street? I don't understand your issues.
Chair Furth: Well, it's only based on the drawing, and it could be completely inaccurate. But, if you look
at the materials, they appear to be brick and highly reflective glass, and black canvas, and metal railings.
I cannot figure out how they make the buildings around them resonate well. That's what concerns me.
Board Member Lew: Okay, so, architectural compatibility.
Chair Furth: Right.
Board Member Lew: Okay.
Chair Furth: I know nothing about how they work, whether the use is appropriate, what they're going to
cost. I'm thinking about the palate, the materials, and again, I'm just looking at a sketch. Maybe when
it's all done and landscaped, we'll all think that's a real enhancement to the neighborhood. Oh, and I
would be very much in support of your efforts to get the water barriers approved so that you could have
appropriate parking. There's been a real sustained effort to make parking work in these neighborhoods. You do have the advantage of a big garage that handles things like the church concert because it's an evening event, but I think for your own users, it will really make things better for people if they have enough parking.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm wondering if we could discuss perhaps what Alex brought up, about the setback on
Hamilton, both because we've given very conflicting information, one about more landscaping and one
about possibly reducing the setback, and I find that intriguing. I wasn't aware if it's possible. Maybe staff
could start by telling us, is that an option, to bring the setback back to 10 feet? We're doing that with the
parking garage down the way on Hamilton. If the purpose of the setback was just for future road
widening, and the road is not likely to be widened, I think it would give the developers and architects
more latitude if it could be done. Is it feasible?
Ms. Gerhardt: Related to special setbacks, that has been in place for some time, and we have been
consistently applying that to all projects. We have not done variances into those special setbacks as of
yet. We've put some monument signs, some fences, things of that nature, but not actual structures. So,
without changing the zoning code, I think it would be best to respect the special setback. But, we do have some leeway in other areas that Haleigh can probably express.
Ms. King: Yeah, along the Webster Street frontage, that's where you've got the zero to 16 foot setback to work with as it relates to the context of the neighborhood and the street.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm just thinking that the 16 feet on Webster is pretty important to line up with 530.
But along Hamilton is where it actually would help the commercial building to be out of line with the
other ones, and just to have a little more latitude if you want a front porch, if you want any kind of detail
or texture. Give them something to work with. Maybe more importantly is for other Board members to
chime in how we feel about that, because Wynne's request for increased landscaping there is opposite of
that, I think.
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Chair Furth: You don't have to hear it that way. If the building is open to the street instead of being cut
off from the street -- as it presently is -- then it's front-yard landscaping.
Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, I think the question is, are we trying to create front yards with urban residential
development, or...
Chair Furth: I have a front yard in my urban residential development.
Vice Chair Baltay: Maybe more comments would help.
Chair Furth: Not big, but the rhododendrons are lovely.
Board Member Lew: For me, it's the design quality. We have very small setbacks in a lot of the downtown areas, but they're designed really well. I think that's the issue. We don't want something blank, or uniform, or monotonous, right? We really want high-quality planting that's interesting at a pedestrian
scale. I would support, if there were some sort of entry porch features, I would support those in a
reduced setback on Webster Street. And I think I would be...Like Board Member Baltay, I would be
interested in a commercial building coming up forward to the seven-foot setback, if it were possible. I
don't think it's...I think that special setbacks have been enforced strictly, so I don't think that it's feasible.
Ms. Gerhardt: We do have one location on 3200 El Camino, which is a commercial site adjacent to the
research park that had a fairly hefty 50-foot special setback.
Board Member Lew: With a hotel.
Ms. Gerhardt: So, we have maybe one precedent, but it's just something that has to go to council for that
kind of conversation.
Chair Furth: I'm not arguing for variances, obviously, but we have a housing directive from the council,
and we have a housing project, and this might be the time to ask them, to show them what this is doing. I certainly would think that balconies, entries, steps, and all those kinds of things could work. I mean, I'm not holding up where I live as a model of urban design, but it's highly functional, and it's attractive, and it has no curb cuts, which is one of the nice things about this design. It doesn't have a bunch of driveways. We have knee-high walls, which are not very far setback from the...They should be set back further so
you could have bigger plants there, but they work. And then, we have another, I think nine feet before
our porches start up, eight, nine feet, and then we have porches. That also gives us a sense of shelter.
But, you can do much better design than we have. But I do think it's possible to have a unit that's at
ground level. After our last debate, I measured mine. It's 18 inches above curb, but it's set back, and it's
buffered by as much landscaping as I want. A really dense Japanese maple, and...I look out my windows
and I could be in the country because that's the size of the trees. So, I don't know how to make it better,
but I want it to engage the street.
Board Member Lew: I have a quick question for staff. Because of the number of units, will this project
have to go to the Council?
Ms. King: No, because on the CDC portion, there are only six units, and the threshold is nine for a site and design. And then, the RM-40 portion is just subject to major ARB.
Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you.
Board Member Thompson: I think I agree, in most part, with Chair Furth, in, like, adding balconies, adding some sort of residential scale to the façade. The project could benefit greatly from that, especially
given the material palate that you're developing. Minus the cement board, but, you know, we'll see. And I
think it's true, I could support the office coming forward if that was even allowed, but in terms of the
setbacks that you have, I agree that integrating really thoughtful landscaping is actually a huge benefit
City of Palo Alto Page 33
to the residents. I mean, as it is so many times in open settings, buildings are just pushed up against the
sidewalk, and you have this tiny strip, and it just doesn't feel like enough. I think the greenery really
gives a breath of fresh air, and I think given that you're aiming for a biophilic design, I think you can
definitely use that to your advantage. So, I definitely encourage more greener in the front, as much as
possible.
Chair Furth: One of the problems is your own property sets a really high example. You have very
beautifully-mandated landscaping there. It's of an era, it's a different era, but it's impressive.
Board Member Lew: One last comment. Could you comment on units 15 and 16, which are on the third floor? Sixteen is the one I would be most concerned about. It's just because it has very limited window area, surrounded on three sides by other units or the neighboring buildings.
Ms. Cole: These two units, 15 and 16, have a different feel than the other units. They don't have the two
sides of glass when it comes to looking into the courtyard and then back to the street, or to a property
line. What we've done for unit 15, basically it's a one-bedroom unit, and we've provided a green space
for each of these in front so they have their own yard component to them. They enter into that piece and
they have kind of a frontage of that, which has privacy. And then, 15 has a window to the redwood
garden inside.
Board Member Lew: Thank you.
Board Member Thompson: And 16 just has the one window out to the courtyard area?
Ms. Cole: Yes, it has a whole wall of glass, basically, along that side. The way we've laid it out is a living
room and a bedroom, and then the kitchen and the bathroom is in the back. I'm sorry. We also do have
skylights for those two units, so they have light coming in, but they don't have a window in the back.
Chair Furth: Could you say that again? I didn't quite hear you.
Ms. Cole: These two units will have skylights because we are on the top level. They will have light coming into the back of the units.
Board Member Lew: Would it make sense to have units 15 and 16...Let me phrase it this way. Did you
consider putting 15 and 16 on where you have the shared terrace, along Webster Street? It would also
maybe allow more, possibly add more sunlight to the courtyard if that were only a two-story massing.
Have you already considered this?
Ms. Cole: Yeah.
Board Member Lew: Okay.
Ms. Gerhardt: Well, no, I think we're running into zoning issues...
Board Member Lew: Okay, got it.
Ms. Gerhardt: ...because there are two different zones for this project.
Board Member Lew: Right, and different floor areas. Okay. Got it. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Such fun, working in our code.
Board Member Gooyer: It was a good idea, though.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
Chair Furth: We all thought of it. It's just that we don't allow it. Colleagues up here, this covered terrace
on project north concerns me. I have this vision of this dark place where whatever is green is not going
to thrive.
Board Member Lew: You're saying the first floor...
Chair Furth: Yeah, I'm looking at...
[crosstalk]
Chair Furth: ...Level 1 plan. That doesn't seem to be likely to work. I feel like I've been in a lot of those spaces and it never exactly works.
Board Member Lew: Why don't we...
Ms. Cole: That's under the story above, so it actually is intentionally covered.
Chair Furth: Exactly. I got it.
Ms. Cole: Okay.
Chair Furth: I just don't think it's a very pleasant space.
Board Member Lew: Could we just phrase maybe for next time that we understand how all of the open
spaces function? What do you call it? The useable...? Common, open...Common and private useable
spaces?
Chair Furth: To what extent is this being driven by our zoning requirements?
Board Member Gooyer: Like a cross-section, or something.
Chair Furth: Because, of course, I'm pushing for relocating open spaces where they're shared with the
street, as well as the unit. Which may or may not be permitted under our code. But, I do like the roof
terrace. And I would be in favor of...Oh, could you add this issue of the setbacks to our study session next meeting? And it's affect on these kinds of projects? We have a study session at our next meeting to talk about the various ways that the code advances or frustrates residential and mixed use and transit-oriented and public facility, other zoning districts in the city. Anything we want to say to the applicant
before they go off? All done? Come join us.
Brandy Bridges, Wilson Meany: I would. I just wanted to mostly thank you for the feedback. We're early
in our process. It's very preliminary. But, having this feedback early is just so important. Board Member
Gooyer, I completely agree with you on the residential parking. It's essential that we find a way to keep
the residents parked on site, and we are definitely going to be pursuing the parking lifts, finding a way to
elevate that electrical so we can hopefully park the entire project on site. That's something that we desire
to a great extent. With the market rate housing currently on site, there are nine units. We know housing
is so important to Palo Alto, so the new project would have 19 units. We would be paying into the in-lieu
fee, and we think that that's a great thing to at least increase the housing stock, while recognizing the
issues with regard to losing older units. We recognize that issue, but we're excited to at least be able to
increase the number of units on site. We do think of 530 Webster as an aunt. I used to live at 530 Webster, so I love that property, and I completely echo your thoughts with regard to how beautiful the landscaping is. We're hopeful that by pushing our setbacks back to match the setback at 530 Webster, that we can have, you know, that's a good 20 feet. We're about to bring our landscape architect on board to start developing the landscaping, so I think we'll definitely have him come down and take a look
at 530 Webster, and work really hard to integrate something, so that we do keep the fantastic
landscaping. Because we want that corner to feel residential, and part of feeling residential is feeling
City of Palo Alto Page 35
green. I mostly just wanted to thank you for your comments today and let you know that we're listening,
and we'll also find a way to integrate a more residential, pedestrian-friendly, kind of openness to the
street. We'll find a way to do that. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you for your presentation and your comments. That concludes our public hearings for
today.
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2018.
5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2018.
6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2018.
Chair Furth: I hope this time we have read the minutes, all 170 pages of them. I just wanted to say to
staff that the minutes that we're looking at involve some big public projects, and it was tremendously
useful to have those. I know it's expensive and difficult to have these verbatim minutes, but even if it's
embarrassing to see what we actually said sometimes, it's really helpful to understand what we thought
was important. I appreciate that effort.
Board Member Gooyer: Transcribed word for word.
Chair Furth: Well, sometimes some pretty creative words in there. I have a bunch of clerical errors. I'll
give you my copy, but I need them back because they're about things we're continuing to. Is everybody
willing to vote on all three of these at once? Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion?
Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we approve the minutes for February 15, 2018, March 1,
2018, and March 15, 2018.
Chair Furth: Is there a second?
Board Member Thompson: I have a quick question. If I already emailed my comments, do I need to say, like, subject to...?
Chair Furth: Were they clerical errors?
Board Member Thompson: Mostly. There's, like, spelling, but it changed the word.
Chair Furth: If it's a clerical error, if it's a mis-transcription, you just need to tell staff about it.
Board Member Thompson: Okay. I can still approve.
Chair Furth: If you change your vote, that's a different matter. We do refer to a male speaker as "Ms." all
the way through one set of minutes. He would not like that. Okay. All those in favor?
Board Member Lew: We need a second.
Chair Furth: Oh, sorry. I was thinking Osma was the second.
Board Member Thompson: I'll second.
Chair Furth: Thank you for catching that. All those in favor say aye? Any opposed?
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
City of Palo Alto Page 36
Subcommittee Item
7. 620 Emerson Street (17PLN-00331): Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved
Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Landscaping
on the Roof. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction).
Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact
the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Furth: We will have a subcommittee item, 620 Webster [sic] Street. That is review of the rooftop garden at Nobu, and that's Alex and me. Alex and I.
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements
Ms. Gerhardt: I just wanted to go back to the public's comment about having a difficult time finding
pending projects. We're definitely trying to do more and more about that, about putting information up
on our website. The planning website has been re-done recently, so there is a whole projects page that
people can go to. It shows pending projects and approved projects. On that page you will find our
buildingeye software, which is a graphic representation of the entire city, showing dots where all of the
different permits are happening. We welcome people to take a look at that and be involved in the
process.
Chair Furth: Do we post preliminary reviews on the property?
Ms. Gerhardt: That's a good question. I believe there should be a board on site. I'd have to verify.
Chair Furth: I don't remember...
Ms. Gerhardt: Actually, no. We would. Because anything that has a public hearing like this, we would do the posting and the mailing for those.
Chair Furth: That's good to know. Anything else?
Board Member Lew: When you asked me to remind you about our retreat study session, and that you wanted to add height limits.
Chair Furth: Right. How are you advertising? How are you proposing to describe that study session at the
moment?
Ms. Gerhardt: I had it more as just a discussion about architecture at this point. We had talked about the
distinct portions of a building being the base, middle and top, so wanted to have a conversation about
that. There was a question about height requirements and sort of where we're measuring that from. And
then, what was added today was about the setbacks, and maybe what could go in a setback, what can't,
and discussion about, are they the right setbacks.
Chair Furth: Shall we just call it a study of the interaction of the zoning code and architectural design?
What do you want to call it? I want the conversation to be able to go in directions that people want it to
(inaudible).
Vice Chair Baltay: I thought we were asked to provide staff with feedback regarding the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and base-middle-top regulation on the building. If we broaden it to this extent, it probably just means we have a bunch of talk and nothing comes out of it.
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, it might be too broad. Too many things.
City of Palo Alto Page 37
Chair Furth: Okay. I would feel frustrated if we couldn't talk about height limits.
Vice Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Wynne. Several times, we've had issues come up with the El Camino Real
guidelines requiring a base, a middle and a top. If you try to apply that consistently up and down El
Camino...
Chair Furth: Okay, but we've had it come up.
Vice Chair Baltay: ...staff has asked us for guidance on how we interpret that.
Chair Furth: Okay. Should we limit it to El Camino Real?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. I think if we focus on that, we'll be able to provide a real guideline to staff.
Chair Furth: Okay. Then, let's talk about the architectural review of projects on El Camino Real.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm happy to discuss other things, as well, in a different setting, maybe.
Chair Furth: All right. Let's keep it focused on El Camino Real.
Board Member Thompson: (inaudible)
Chair Furth: But, let's call it architectural review of projects on El Camino Real so that if somebody wants
to talk about setbacks, or materials, or noise levels, or whatever, they can. But we're going to keep
it...We particularly want to focus on top-middle-bottom, and judging by our recent discussions, height.
Okay, anything else before we go to the subcommittee? All right. We are adjourned. Thank you.
Adjournment