HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-02 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 or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Architectural Review Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: August 2, 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: 250 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]: Consideration of a Major
Architectural Review Application for a Proposed Public Safety Building to be Three
Stories Above Grade With 45,400 to 48,000 sf of Floor Area Above two Basement
Levels With Usable Floor Area Within the First Basement Level, Five Surface Parking
Spaces Within a Fenced Area and 143 Below Grade Parking Spaces (Including 12 Stalls
in Tandem Arrangement), as Well as two Operational Site Buildings Accessory to the
Public Safety Building, Landscape Improvements, and a Public Plaza. City Council
Approved the Environmental Impact Report and Public Facilities Ordinance
Amendment on June 11, 2018. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). For More
Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
_______________________
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 or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2018.
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 21, 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 or less 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 # 9479)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/2/2018
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/Lew
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 Wynne
9/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Peter
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
August 16
429University Avenue: Condition Compliance - West Wall,
Landscaping, Materials (1st Formal)
2609 Alma Street: Four Unit Condominium Project in RM-30 (1st
Formal)
656 Lytton Avenue: Facade Revisions (Prelim)
1.b
Packet Pg. 7
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 9398)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/2/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 250 Sherman Avenue: Public Safety Building Second Hearing
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: 250 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]:
Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application for
a Proposed Public Safety Building to be Three Stories Above
Grade With 45,400 to 48,000 sf of Floor Area Above two
Basement Levels With Usable Floor Area Within the First
Basement Level, Five Surface Parking Spaces Within a Fenced
Area and 143 Below Grade Parking Spaces (Including 12 Stalls
in Tandem Arrangement), as Well as two Operational Site
Buildings Accessory to the Public Safety Building, Landscape
Improvements, and a Public Plaza. City Council Approved the
Environmental Impact Report and Public Facilities Ordinance
Amendment on June 11, 2018. Zone District: PF (Public
Facilities). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official
Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Recommend City Council approval of the proposed Public Safety Building (PSB) based on
Architectural Review findings and subject to conditions of approval contained in the
Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment B).
Report Summary
The proposed Public Safety Building (PSB) would house the Police Department, 911 Emergency
Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and Fire
Department administration. Prior to constructing the new PSB, the City intends to complete the
construction of the Council-approved public parking garage at 350 Sherman Avenue. On June
11, 2018, Council approved the PSB Project Final EIR, published May 11, 2018, adopted the
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
ordinance modifying the Public Facilities (PF) zone, and approved the formal Architectural
Review (AR) application for the Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Ave.
The PSB project (PSB and Garage) relies on PF code amendments Council adopted in June 2018
(see attached ordinance, Attachment C). The June 11th Council staff report is available online:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=49397.54&BlobID=65308.
Council action minutes from June 11th are available online at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=83343.27&BlobID=65725
The links to important documents for the PSB Project are found at this webpage link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/PublicSafetyBldg
In October 2017, the ARB reviewed the PSB formal AR application in conjunction with the 350
Sherman Avenue Public Parking Garage AR application. The October 2017 ARB staff report
included extensive background information on the PSB Project, along with analysis and
evaluation to city codes and policies. The staff report link is here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61817. This is the second ARB
public hearing, for a review and recommendation of the revised PSB plans (Attachment H).
The purpose of this report is to restate the ARB’s October comments regarding the PSB, detail
the applicant’s responses thereto, transmit the revised project narrative and revised plans, and
provide draft findings for ARB consideration and recommendation of the project. The analysis
section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and has been
modified to reflect recent project changes.
Background
ARB Review
The October 2017 ARB review was captured in a video recording that is available online at
http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-72/. Excerpt minutes of the October
meeting are attached to this report (Attachment D). The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s
responses are summarized in the following table:
ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response
Try a softer, warmer approach The approach is warmer (warmer colors),
and pedestrian-oriented on all frontages
(including an undulating terra cotta-tinted,
board-formed concrete courtyard wall with
sidewalk and planters along Jacaranda)
Relocate staff garage ramp from Birch The employee vehicle ramp formerly on
Birch is now accessed from Jacaranda
Create a human scale welcoming presence The ‘terra cotta realm’ is intended to
provide a sense of belonging at ground
floor. The project has human scale features
including canopies, landscaping, pedestrian
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
pole lighting, and site and diverse seating
(built-in, planter edge, and moveable units)
Integrate communications tower into building
design
The tower relates to architectural features
Use warmer materials palette A warmer material palette is now proposed
(sand and terra cotta building and paving)
Articulate the building form – reduce
blockiness
The building features greater articulation
including (bird friendly) glass at upper floor
Consider a smaller plaza area The plaza area is smaller than prior design
Remove operational yard
This was not done; staff identified the yard
as a public safety operational requirement
Consider a larger plaza This was not done; the plaza is smaller due
to the protrusion of the single-story multi-
purpose room
In addition to addressing the ARB’s comments, the plans reflect a new pedestrian friendly
approach for Jacaranda alley, provide additional project information and more detailed
renderings. Section details illuminate the pedestrian experience of the multi-purpose room,
stairs, entry, sidewalks, planters and public seating. Visual simulation of the communications
pole and attachments are included in updated renderings that also show landscape plantings,
light poles and people. The revised set includes photometric plans and lighting fixture images.
The project architect has provided an updated narrative (Attachment E) describing the modified
project. Current plan set images in the next report section illustrate the project changes.
Council Action on PSB Project EIR, PF Amendment, and Garage
The Architectural Review application for the PSB will be reviewed and acted upon by City
Council in the fall of 2018. Council recently adopted/approved the following documents
necessary to move forward with PSB approval:
A. A Resolution (Attachment F) certifying the Public Safety Building Project Final EIR and
making required findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
including findings related to environmental impacts, mitigation measures and
alternatives, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and
B. An Ordinance (Attachment C) modifying the Public Facilities (PF) Zone Development
Standards in Chapter 18.28 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as recommended
by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC).
In addition to the above actions in June 2018, Council:
1. Adopted a Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment G) approving the 636-space,
four-story parking structure at 350 Sherman Avenue, and
2. Directed staff, via motion amendments, to
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
a. have a goal of minimizing zoning exceptions for future projects and consider car lifts
and parking that can be repurposed,
b. work with the PTC to study an additional exemption to Municipal Code Section
18.28.060(e) for Below Market Rate housing, in conjunction with other Zoning
amendments; and
c. consider pricing for the parking garage.
Analysis1
The following images are to assist the ARB and members of the public to see the modifications
the project team implemented over the past six months in response to ARB comments.
Jacaranda vehicle entry, sidewalk, undulating wall and planters; smaller plaza @ Birch
Birch plaza with trees in a double allee – a protected front yard for lobby and community room
A row of nine Chinese Elms near the road and a row of five Japanese maples near the building
would create an allee. Succulents would be planted in the planters along the alley.
Pedestrian Circulation, Sidewalks and Security Fence
The Birch Street median would be shortened near Sherman to improve the pedestrian
crosswalk across Birch. Proposed sidewalk curb locations have been adjusted and pedestrian
crossing bulb-outs have been added. Natural stone bollard and stone walls would provide
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. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
security barriers and demarcate entry into the public plaza. The ten foot tall security wall along
Jacaranda was moved farther away from the property line to provide a continuous sidewalk.
Exceptions
For most of its distance, the Jacaranda wall meets the 10-foot setback of the PF zone; a portion
of the wall exceeds the four foot maximum fence height within the 10-foot setback. No Design
Enhancement Exception is required for the wall, given Council-adopted amendments to the
Public Facilities ordinance, which also covers the below-grade setback encroachments.
Emergency communications tower integrated with related architectural tower feature
Nighttime view from corner Sherman/Birch Warmer color palette to be displayed at hearing
Paving and Lighting
The plaza paving is a variable pattern of stone or pre-cast concrete, differentiated from the field
paving to accent building entry, community room, and an inside/outside flow into the lobby.
The paving within the seating areas in the planting bands is a smaller, intimate scale. The light
poles in the plaza will be supplemented with lighting integrated into site furniture.
Design Approach and Materials
The building has been designed to be more open, approachable, human scaled and civic with
the use of white porcelain tile and bird-friendly glass, sand-colored porcelain tile on pre-cast
concrete panel, and terra cotta board-formed concrete as shown and described further below.
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
The architect balanced openness with security via a three-part layering of façade elements:
• At the base is a full perimeter, continuous pedestrian realm which is defined by a board
formed, terra cotta colored concrete base in which openings, landscape and passive
seating elements are integrated.
• Behind the single-story base is a two-story warm toned precast concrete wall system
which references the building heights along California Avenue.
• The third-floor element is a glass and white porcelain tile facade with interior aluminum
Aerofoil louvers for light and glare control.
Louvers at Windows
White adjustable Aerofoil louvers are proposed on the interior of the windows at the third
floor. The louvers allow adjustability to control glare, light, and privacy. The module and pattern
of the louvers are intended resemble and complement the terra-cotta baguette screen on the
parking structure across the street on Birch.
Landscaping
The project narrative includes a Landscape Statement of Design Intent. Notable is the
demonstration garden at the plaza, double rows of trees, raingarden planters (with variable
profiles to allow nested seating area), and increased percentage of native trees (25%).
Site plan and landscape planting: Operations yard has 5-parking spaces:
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
Plant Materials/Planting Plan
No planting plan was included in the July 19th plan set used to write this report. The project
narrative notes potential tree species include Silk tree, Crepe Myrtle, Redbud, Flowering plum,
Linden, Cork Oak, Sweet Gum, London Plane, Sycamore, and Valley Oak trees. The enlarged
site plan notes five tree species (Chinese Elms at Birch, London Planes and Sycamores at the
Sherman sidewalk, Silver Lindens along the Park sidewalk, and Japanese Maples forming the
back of the allee near Birch and in the employee courtyard.
The enlarged site plan also notes several types of plantings. Plant Type 1, California native
grasses are proposed in planters at the plaza, employee courtyard, and along Sherman Avenue.
Plant Type 2, succulents and drought tolerant shrubs, are proposed in planters fronting the
sidewalks along Jacaranda, Sherman and Park frontages. Storm-water plantings (#3 Rain
Garden plants) are proposed in the planters along Sherman and Park sidewalks. The locations
for four vine species are unclear (planting #5 cited as Solanum, Distictus, Thumbergia, and
Ficus) on the enlarged site plan. The plant selections are under review as of the writing of this
report. Additional planting information will be available at the ARB hearing.
Findings
To support approval of the Architectural Review application, given the revised PSB plans, the
attached RLUA contains the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, draft Architectural Review
findings, and draft conditions of approval. The revised plans are associated with customized,
draft findings for approval – landscape-related findings will be updated following receipt of the
planting plan for inclusion in the Council report. The ARB is requested to review and provide
input into the approval findings.
Environmental Review
City Council certified the Final EIR on June 11, 2018. The Final EIR includes responses to Draft
EIR public comments and is viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65005.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
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 July 20, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred
on July 23, 2018, which is ten days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Any
comments received through July 25, 2018 are attached (Attachment I). Comments received
after July 25th will be forwarded to the ARB and City Council.
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 ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Location Map (DOCX)
Attachment B: DRAFT RLUA for PSB (DOC)
Attachment C: ORDINANCE 5445 Amended PF Zoning District (PDF)
Attachment D: Excerpt Minutes ARB October 19, 2017 (DOCX)
Attachment E: Project Narrative Updated July 19, 2018 (PDF)
Attachment F: RESOLUTION 9772 Certifying EIR and Making CEQA Findings PSB Project
(PDF)
Attachment G: Council approved RLUA for Sherman Avenue Garage (PDF)
Attachment H: Instructions to View Project Plans and EIR (DOCX)
Attachment I: Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)
2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment A: Location Map
Public Safety Building
250 Sherman Avenue
2.a
Packet Pg. 16
1
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2018-0X
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 250 SHERMAN
AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17PLN-00256: PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
On _______, 2018, the Council held a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering
all of the evidence presented, approved the proposed Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman
Avenue making the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
On ________, 2018, Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Architectural
Review application and approval recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, for the
Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue;
A. On October 19, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted the first
public hearing of the Public Safety Building (PSB) application, together with the application for the
Sherman Avenue public parking garage, and continued its review of both applications to a date
uncertain;
B. On January 18, 2018 the ARB reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the PSB Project in a public hearing and provided comments, which were addressed in the Final
EIR Council adopted on June 11, 2018;
C. On June 11, 2018, Council adopted modifications to the Public Facilities
development and parking standards for public parking facilities and essential services facilities
within the Downtown and California Avenue business districts;
D. On August 2, 2018, the ARB reviewed the PSB application in a public hearing
including a review of the Architectural Review approval findings and draft approval conditions, and
recommended approval of the proposed public parking garage by a vote of _ to _.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On June 11, 2018, the City of Palo Alto City
Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and made related findings by Resolution 9772.
SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. The design and architecture of the
proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required
in PAMC Chapter 18.76. The design and architecture of the proposed public safety building
complies with the Six Findings for Architectural Review set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 18.76 Section 18.76.020.
Attachment A
2.b
Packet Pg. 17
2
(1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant
design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:
With Council’s recent adoption of amendments to the Public Facilities development and
parking standards for essential services facilities and parking garages within the Downtown
and California Avenue Business districts approval of the project, the project complies with
the land use and development standards of the PF zone.
The following policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the
project:
o Policy T-5.6, strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and
explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all
types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping
where feasible,
o Policy T-5.7, require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and
bicycle safety,
o Policy T-5.8, promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce storm water runoff,
increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other
public locations. Encourage the use of photovoltaic panel or tree canopies in
parking lots or on top of parking structures to provide cover, consistent with the
Urban Forest Master Plan,
o Policy N-2.3, enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and
diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils
and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same and
discouraging the planting of invasive species,
o Policy N-2.10, preserve and protect Regulated Trees on public and private
property…and related program N2.10.1 continue to require replacement of trees
including street trees lost to new development,
o Policy N-4.12, encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the
amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the
retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID
measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where
practical.
o Policy L-1.10, hold new development to the highest development standards in
order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development
with the least impacts,
o Policy L-4.2, encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all
Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or
that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping,
o Policy L-4.3, ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide
centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage
economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees,
kiosks, restrooms and public art,
2.b
Packet Pg. 18
3
o Policy L-4.8, maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California
Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center intermediate in
function and scale between the Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business
areas,
o Policy L-5.2, provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections
to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts,
o Policy L-5.3, design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and
consistent with the character of the area where they are located,
o Policy L-6.1, promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces,
o Policy L-6.3, encourage bird-friendly design,
o Policy L-6.6, design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote
personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of
community safety,
o Policy L-6.10, encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy efficient, and
appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. (no
signage proposed with this application),
o Policy L-8.2, provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art,
o Policy L-70, enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining street
trees,
o Policy L-8.4, create facilities for civic and intellectual life, such as better urban
spaces for civic programs and speakers, cultural, musical and artistic events,
o Policy L-8.5, recognize public art … as a community benefit; encourage the
development of new public and private art and ensure such projects are compatible
with the character and identity of the neighborhood,
o Policy L-8.6, seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces,
open space and community gardens,
o Policy L-9.2, encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the
project, including locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or
by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to
surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still
maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking
to meet demand,
o Policy L-9.6, create…publicly accessible, shared outdoor gathering spaces within
walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods,
o Policy L-9.7 strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways,
including…entries to commercial districts,
o Policy L-9.8 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan into the
Comprehensive Plan by reference in order to assure that new land uses recognize
the many benefits of trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust
tree canopy throughout the city,
2.b
Packet Pg. 19
4
Related Program L-9.8.1, establish incentives to encourage native trees and
low water use plantings in new development throughout the city,
o Policy L-9.9, involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development
review,
o Policy L-9.11, design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures,
parking garages and parking lots, to meet high-quality urban design standards and
embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in
design of public infrastructure.
Related Program L9.11.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed
utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow
preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in
locations that will minimize their visual intrusion.
(2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
(2a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and
the general community; The project is consistent with Finding 2(a), given:
The right-of-way improvements will improve circulation; employee automobile ingress
from/egress onto Jacaranda Lane is compatible with the design concept and functions;
The new facilities and amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles are an
improvement from the existing facilities as to safety and convenience;
(2b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the
site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant; The project is
consistent with Finding 2(b), given:
Although all existing on-site and street trees will be removed to allow for construction of
the PSB, 20 new street trees in 24” to 36” box sizes (with post pavement support system
and necessary soil volume for long-term health and separation for utilities) are proposed
around the perimeter of the building on Sherman, Birch and Park;
Alongside Birch Street, five additional trees will form an allee with the street trees; two
additional trees are proposed for the ‘front yard’ area;
On Sherman Avenue, eight additional trees are proposed closer to the building to enhance
the streetscape;
On Park Boulevard, four additional trees are proposed behind the street trees;
Five Japanese maple trees are proposed in the employee courtyard near Jacaranda Lane;
(2c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district; Finding
2c is not applicable since the PF zone does not impose context based design criteria.
(2d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and
land use designations; The project is consistent with Finding 2(d), given:
The materials and architectural forms are intended to be compatible with the mid-century
architecture of the area which includes:
2.b
Packet Pg. 20
5
o A four story building across Sherman (the County courthouse and jail building), a
mixed use (office-residential) building on the corner across Sherman, one- and two-
story commercial buildings fronting California Avenue, and multi-story residential
building on the opposite corner.
(2e) enhances living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas;
There are no living units proposed on the site; the project is consistent with Finding 2(e),
wherever feasible, with limited lighting proposed facing the multiple family residential
building on Sherman Avenue, and with pedestrian friendly landscaping, lighting and
sidewalks to enhance residents’ experience walking to California Avenue.
(3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that
are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area; the project is consistent with Finding 3,
given:
The materials were selected for quality, durability and to convey warmth;
The new structure’s materials and construction techniques are appropriate for the use;
Colors and textures will be compatible with nearby civic buildings and park landscaping;
(4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and
providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient
vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space
and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.); the project is consistent with Finding 4, given:
The 10’ high security wall along Jacaranda is set back from the property line to provide
a continuous sidewalk and meet the 10’ PF zone setback requirement for a significant
length of the alley;
Sidewalk curb location adjustments and pedestrian crossing bulb-outs promote safe
pedestrian traffic;
(5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings,
is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous
drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be
appropriately maintained; the project is consistent with Finding 5, given:
Selected tree species will thrive in an urban environment, provide appropriate
architectural emphasis and scale on each of the three frontages, and have relatively low
maintenance and water requirements.
Sherman and Park frontages receive raised planters with integral seating, an area of
rain garden planting.
Sherman Avenue and Birch Street receive wider sidewalks allowing for street trees and
benches.
2.b
Packet Pg. 21
6
The entry alignment of the Birch Street ramp connects with Jacaranda to allow a
landscaped front yard plaza on Birch,
The landscaped setbacks accommodate seating and shade for individual passive
activities along Birch, Sherman and Park frontages;
Low-level, focused pedestrian lighting will reinforce the intimate and small-scale
aspects of the plazas/streets, avoid light-pollution, and reinforce the civic character of
the facilities.
(6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to
energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning; the
project is consistent with Finding #6 given:
Suitable street tree planting environments and storm water design features are key
features of the project.
SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval
is hereby granted for the Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue by the City Council
pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 5. Plan Approval.
Public Safety Building
The plans for the Public Safety Building submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by RussDrulisCusenbery, consisting of __
pages, received July 19, 2018, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in
Section 7. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community
Development.
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Impact Mitigation Measures Required for Both Project Components (250 and 350 Sherman)
Air Quality Mitigation 5-1. To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated
with PM2.5 emissions, including emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated
during project construction activities, the City and/or it’s designated contractors,
contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
1. Implement BAAQMD-recommended “Additional Construction Measures”. The City shall implement the following
BAAQMD recommended additional construction mitigation measures during construction activities: (1) All exposed
surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent, to be verified by
lab samples or moisture probe, (2) All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when
average winds speeds exceed 20 miles per hour, (3) Temporary wind breaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the
windward (generally the north / northwest) of actively disturbed areas of construction. The wind breaks should have at
maximum 50 percent air porosity, (4) Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast germinating native grass seed) shall be planted
2.b
Packet Pg. 22
7
in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established, (5) Simultaneous
occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities in the same area at any one time shall
be limited and/or phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time, (6) All trucks and equipment,
including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site, (7) Site access to a distance of 100 feet from the paved
road, or as much as feasible, shall be treated with a compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, gravel, or other cover as
feasible to reduce track-out, (8) Minimize the idling time for diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes
provided such idling restrictions are consistent with manufacturer’s equipment specifications.
2. Apply construction equipment restrictions. The City shall apply the following construction equipment restrictions to
the proposed project: (1) Electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas equipment shall be employed
instead of diesel powered equipment to the maximum extent feasible. (2) All construction equipment with a rated
power-output of 25 horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Final Emission Standards for
particulate matter. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV
emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB verified diesel emission
control strategy (e.g., oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM emissions to levels that
meet Tier IV standards.
3. Prepare Construction Risk Reduction Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City and/or its contractor
shall prepare a Construction Risk Reduction Plan for the project which: (1) Identifies the final planned construction
phasing schedule and anticipated equipment operations. (2) Estimates the proposed project’s construction emissions
based on the final phasing and equipment plan. Any emission update shall be performed using the latest recommended
emissions estimator model recommended by the BAAQMD or other standard, acceptable methodology (e.g.,
contractor-specific fleet emission factors and estimates of equipment operating hours). (3) Models the potential diesel
particulate matter and total PM2.5 concentrations resulting from refined emissions estimates. Any modeling shall be
performed using an accepted screening or refined dispersion model recommended for use by the BAAQMD. The
modeling shall focus on discrete, residential receptors located at and near the proposed project site. (4) Estimates
potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to DPM. Risk estimates shall follow the latest
recommendations of the BAAQMD. The goal of the risk estimation shall be to identify the receptor(s) or areas of
receptors where carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk thresholds may be exceeded. If risks are exceeded, the plan
shall identify feasible on- and off-site measures to reduce risks to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. On-site measures
may include the BAAQMD “Additional Construction Measures” and construction equipment restrictions included in
Mitigation Measure 5-1, as well as phasing / activity restrictions. Off-site measures may include coordinating with all
impacted receptors to replace and upgrade existing HVAC systems to provide high performance panel filters capable of
reducing potential modeled outdoor PM2.5 concentrations / risks to levels that are below BAAQMD thresholds.
4. Implement Off-Site Mitigation. In-lieu of preparing the Construction Risk Reduction Plan identified above, the City
may, prior to the start of construction activities, coordinate directly with impacted residential receptors to replace and
upgrade existing residential HVAC systems with a high-performance panel filter with a rated minimum efficiency
reporting value (MERV) for particles in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 µm of 70% (presumed to be a minimum MERV14), or
equivalent system upgrade. This level of control would reduce risks to levels below current BAAQMD thresholds. Based
on the results of the modeling conducted for the EIR, the City shall coordinate with residential receptors located in the
area bound by Park Boulevard to the north, Ash Street to the south Sheridan Avenue to the east, and Sherman Avenue
to the west.
Nesting Birds Mitigation 6-1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds and violation of State and
federal laws pertaining to birds, all construction-related activities (including but not limited
to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation,
demolition, and grading) should occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to
February 1 or after August 31).
If construction and construction noise occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to August 31), all
suitable habitats located within the project’s area of disturbance, including staging and storage areas plus a 150-foot
2.b
Packet Pg. 23
8
buffer around these areas, shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the presence of active nests by a qualified
biologist no more than five days before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization.
If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active
nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the
nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented. If it is determined that birds are actively nesting within the survey
area, the additional procedures below shall apply. Conversely, if the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds,
the additional procedures shall not be required.
Additional Procedures. If pre-construction nesting bird surveys result in the location of active nests, no site disturbance
and mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing,
grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) shall take place within 150 feet of nests, or as
determined by a qualified biologist, until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring shall be required to insure compliance
with the MBTA and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be
documented.
Removal of Trees Mitigation 6-2. Prior to removal of the protected trees and street trees,
the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit issued by the City of Palo Alto Urban
Forestry Division for the removal of any and all protected, designated, or street trees
(referred to collectively as “Regulated Trees”). In all cases, replacement trees would be
required as a condition of the tree removal permit, and the project applicant must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that there is no alternative that could preserve
the tree(s) on-site.
The project applicant must provide an evaluation and summary for any Regulated Tree (the collective term for any
protected, designated, or street tree) proposed to be removed. The applicant shall be required, in accordance with the
Tree Protection and Management Regulations (PAMC 8.10) and Tree Technical Manual (PAMC 8.10.130), to replace the
tree canopy for the six (6) protected trees, in accordance with the tree canopy formula identified in the Tree Technical
Manual (TTM, 3.20). If the tree canopy cannot be replaced on-site, the canopy shall be replaced off-site as close to the
project site as feasible. If trees are being replaced off-site, the applicant must submit a Tree Planting Plan to the Urban
Forestry Division and obtain the Urban Forestry Division’s approval of the plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Tree Planting Plan must include:
(a) The canopy calculation for trees removed and the number of trees planned to replace them, consistent with the
formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual.
(b) The specific location where the new trees would be planted with specific baseline information about that proposed
site (e.g., surrounding vegetation or development).
(c) The species of trees to be planted.
(d) Specific planting details (e.g., size of sapling, size of containers, irrigation plan).
(e) Success criteria,
(f) Monitoring and maintenance schedule
(g) Replacement tree planting will be monitored by a qualified arborist.
To verify the success of replacement trees, monitoring shall occur for two years after initial planting. After the two year
period, the arborist will determine if the trees are capable of surviving without further maintenance.
Archeo-Paleo Mitigation 7-1. In the event of the unanticipated discovery of subsurface
archaeological or paleontological resources during earth-moving operations, the following
measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts on these resources to
a less-than- significant level:
1. Conduct Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The City shall retain a
qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and
Standards, and a professionally qualified paleontologist, to conduct an Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity
2.b
Packet Pg. 24
9
Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session will include a
written handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological and paleontological resources that may be
encountered during earth-moving activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of
archaeological and paleontological monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist or
paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.
2. Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In
the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the ground-disturbing
activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of
at least 50 feet shall be established around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until a
qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall
be allowed to continue outside the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction
activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric,
Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring
should be initiated. The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of
the resources, along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
3. Conduct Periodic Archaeological Resources Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities in All Sediments.
The City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards, to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to
determine if construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified
archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed, or have a high
probability of exposing, archaeological artifacts, construction monitoring for archaeological resources will be required.
The City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a
professional archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g.,
grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may
require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and
grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial
fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-
time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist.
If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt in the vicinity of the resources and a
qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected
and processed by the qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and
collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed
from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall
be provided to a museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the
itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage.
A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall
be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the lead agency, shall signify the completion of the program
to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.
Tribal Mitigation 7-2. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin
are identified during construction, all earth-disturbing work within the vicinity of the find
must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the
nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative,
based on the nature of the find, is consulted.
2.b
Packet Pg. 25
10
If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan
shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American
groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would
outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archaeologist and the appropriate Native
American tribal representative.
Geotech Mitigation 8-1. As recommended by the project's preliminary geotechnical
investigation, prior to City issuance of grading permits for individual project construction
components, the City shall be required to retain a registered engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer to prepare detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations to
guide the construction of all project grading and excavation activities.
The detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations shall be performed for each of the structures proposed for
the development site. Subsurface conditions shall be explored and laboratory tests conducted on selected soil samples
to establish parameters for the design of excavations, foundations, shoring, and waterproofing. Recommendations
from the investigations shall be incorporated into all plans for project grading, excavation, soil support (both temporary
and long-term), and utility construction, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The detailed, construction-level
investigations, relevant recommendations, and all associated project grading, excavation and foundation plans, shall be
subject to review and approval by an independent engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer retained by the City
Engineer. In addition, the project civil engineer shall certify to the City Engineer (e.g., through plan submittal for City
review) that all relevant provisions of the investigations have been incorporated into the grading, excavation and
construction plans, and all earthwork and site preparation shall be performed under the direct supervision of a
registered engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.
Contamination Mitigation 10-1. Recommendations included in the Phase II ESA
(Stantec, June 8, 2017) shall be implemented, based on construction level project plans
when more specific and precise design and construction activities are formulated. The
Phase II ESA recommends additional assessment of local and regional groundwater
conditions in advance of dewatering activities, combined with, as necessary, evaluation of
pertinent and cost effective water management strategies, including preparation of Site
Management Plans. Likewise, the project must comply with the City’s standard dewatering
requirements. This assessment and mitigation process shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
Noise Mitigation 13-1. To reduce potential noise levels associated construction of the
proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives,
or other appropriate personnel shall:
Restrict work hours/equipment noise. All work shall be subject to the construction noise and time limits contained in
City Municipal Code Chapter 9.10. Construction activities (including deliveries) shall only occur during the following
time periods: – 8 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday; and – 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday. Construction activities shall be
prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction
site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of these requirements in accordance with Section
9.10.060(c). The sign shall also provide a name (or title) and phone number for an appropriate on-site and City
representative to contact to submit a noise complaint.
Construction equipment care, siting, and design measures. The following construction equipment care, siting, and
design measures shall apply during construction activities: – Heavy equipment engines shall be covered and exhaust
pipes shall include a muffler in good working condition. Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the
2.b
Packet Pg. 26
11
compressed air exhaust. – All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding
machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. At a minimum, such
shielding shall consist of a three-sided sound enclosure (with a full or partial roof) that provides for proper ventilation,
equipment operation, and effective noise control. The enclosure should be designed to achieve a 10 to 15 dB reduction
in stationary equipment noise levels. The design of the enclosure shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant
prior to installation to ensure the enclosure will achieve a minimum 10 dB reduction in stationary equipment noise
levels. – The City shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary, diesel- or other
alternatively-fueled power generators. – No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the
property line of the construction site.
Construction traffic. Construction truck traffic, including soil hauling, equipment deliveries, potential concrete
deliveries, and other vendor deliveries shall follow designated delivery routes prepared for the project, which are
anticipated to include travel on Oregon Expressway and Birch Road.
Construct/Install Temporary Noise Barrier: The City shall install and maintain throughout the duration of all site
preparation, excavation, foundation construction, and building construction activities, one or more physical noise
barriers capable of achieving a minimum reduction in predicted construction noise levels of 15.5 dB. Potential barrier
options would include: – A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-
grade, such as KRail) along the project property line. Such a wall/barrier shall consist of material that have a minimum
rated transmission loss value of 25.5 dB (or equivalent rating), and shall contain no gaps in the structure through which
noise may pass. – Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets installed
along the project property line, building envelope or, if feasible and necessary, at or near sensitive residential receptor
areas. – Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving a 15.5 dB reduction in
construction noise levels at sensitive receptor locations. – Prior to the start of the project, the City may prepare an
acoustical analysis that reflects the final site plan, construction activities, equipment use and duration, and refines
potential construction noise reductions required for the project. The final type, placement, and design of the project’s
temporary noise barrier(s) shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure proper
function and a minimum attenuation of 15.5 dBs in construction noise levels.
Prepare Project Construction Noise Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall
prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact
information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing
construction-noise related issues. Contains a detailed construction schedule and predicted noise levels associated with
construction activities. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and
resolve to construction noise complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the Contractor and/or City
representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the noise source generating the complaint,
determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint.
Prepare Construction Noise Monitoring Plan. Prior to the start of construction, the City or its contractor shall prepare a
Construction Noise Monitoring Plan which identifies: – Construction activities, hours of operation, and predicted
construction noise levels; and – Construction noise monitoring locations, duration, and frequency. The intent of the
Construction Noise Monitoring Plan is to document updated ambient noise levels, monitor construction noise levels,
and verify compliance with the noise reduction requirements in mitigation measure 13-1. If monitoring indicates
temporary noise barriers are not achieving a minimum 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels or otherwise
indicates construction noise is resulting a 10 dB increase in noise levels above ambient conditions, the City shall
increase the height, size (length or width), density, and/or amount of noise barriers installed such that attenuation
requirements are achieved. The Construction Noise Monitoring Plan may be combined with and/or incorporated into
the Construction Noise Complaint Plan described above.
Vibrations Mitigation 13-2. To reduce potential groundborne vibration levels
associated with construction of the proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated
contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
2.b
Packet Pg. 27
12
Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The City shall prohibit the use of large vibratory rollers (small plate compactors are
acceptable) and vibratory pile driving equipment during construction. Any deep foundation piers or caissons shall be
auger drilled.
Provide Notice to Adjacent Property Owners / Occupants. Five (5) days advanced written notice shall be provided to
adjacent property owners and building occupants before commencing all drilling and significant earthmoving activities
within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. The notice shall provide the name (or title) and contact information (including
phone number and email) of the Contractor and City representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-
related concerns.
Prepare Vibration Mitigation Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a
Construction Vibration Response Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact information
(including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction
vibration-related issues. – Contains a detailed schedule of drilling and substantial earth moving activities expected to
occur within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will
receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration
complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the vibration
source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by
reducing groundborne vibration levels to less than 75 VdB and 0.04 in/sec PPV. Such measures may include the use of
nonimpact drivers, use of rubber-tired equipment instead of track equipment, or other measures that limit annoyance
from groundborne vibration levels.
Operational Noise Mitigation 13-3. To reduce potential stationary source noise levels associated
with the operation of the proposed project, the City and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s
representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
Site equipment away from residential areas. Garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps,
and heating and air conditioning equipment shall be located outside of setbacks and screened from view from
residential areas.
Enclose and/or Shield Stationary Noise Generating Equipment. The City shall enclose, shield, baffle, or otherwise
attenuate noise generated from garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating
and air conditioning equipment. The attenuation achieved through such enclosure, shielding, and/or baffling shall be
sufficient to comply with Section 9.10.050(a) of the Municipal Code, which is estimated to be 78.2 dBA.
Prepare Acoustical Study. In accordance with Chapters 9.10 and 18.23 of the Municipal Code, the City shall have an
acoustical analysis prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer that demonstrates: – The proposed parking garage’s
generator would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted). – The
proposed parking garages ventilation fans would not result in a calculated Ldn of 63.0 at sensitive residential receptor
locations. – The proposed public safety building fire pump, back-up generator, and heating and air conditioning
equipment would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted) and
would not result in a calculated increase of more than 3.0 dB Ldn at sensitive receptor locations. The acoustical analysis
shall be based on the final project design, reflect the actual equipment type and location at the project site, and the
actual noise enclosure, shielding, or other attenuation measures included in the final project design. If the acoustical
study demonstrates the noise levels from these sources would be at or within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits,
the City shall demonstrate through monitoring that the equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels.
SECTION 7: Approval Conditions for Public Safety Building
Planning Conditions:
1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents received February
14, 2018, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
2. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this
project.
3. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review.
4. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a
2.b
Packet Pg. 28
13
building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the AR
approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be
made prior to the one year expiration.
Building
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such
as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit,
Encroachment Permit, etc.:
site-specific soils report will be required to be submitted for the building construction permit.
For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements are
required per PAMC16.14.430, Section A5.106.5.3.3. The following standards apply:
o For the employee parking on Basement Level 2, the property owner shall provide Conduit Only,
EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5%
and no fewer than one, shall be EVSE Installed. Please indicate on the plans the location of the
EVSE-Ready and EVSE Installed spaces.
o Accessible spaces. Projects shall comply with the 2016 California Building Code requirements for
accessible electric vehicle parking. Show the location of the required EVSE accessible spaces.
(CBC 11B-228.3, 11B-812)
o Minimum total circuit capacity. The property owner shall ensure sufficient circuit capacity, as
determined by the Chief Building Official, to support a Level 2 EVSE in every location where
Circuit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed is required.
o Location. The EVSE, receptacles, and/or raceway required by this section shall be placed in
locations allowing convenient installation of and access to EVSE. Location of EVSE or receptacles
shall be consistent with all City guidelines, rules, and regulations.
For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements are
required per PAMC 16.14.080. The Green Building Checklist “GB-1 Non-Residential Mandatory Plus Tier 2”
sheet is required for the building permit. The GB-1 Mandatory + Tier 2 sheet can be downloaded from the
City’s website address: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp
Public Works Engineering Approval Conditions
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building
Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.
1. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision
C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations
apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface,
and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or
replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts
of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site
design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to
the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate
permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such
as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term
maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to
discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must
contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the Building permit review process to certify that the
2.b
Packet Pg. 29
14
proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo
Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan,
and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party
reviewer prior to grading or building permit issuance by the Public Works department and MUST be
submitted before 06/30/2019.
2. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of
an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for
approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the
approved permit drawings.
3. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto
adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from
the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works.
4. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting
the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the
basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all
exterior basement-level spaces, such as light-wells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a
sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10
feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the
soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito
habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any
adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works
recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and
waterproofing systems for the basement.
5. DEWATERING: Proposed basement/underground garage excavation may require dewatering during
construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater
dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate
capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated
groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all
required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public
Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our
website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp
6. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will
be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and
preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses
both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is
required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and
approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's standard "Pollution Prevention - It's
Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the
Development Center.
2.b
Packet Pg. 30
15
7. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious
surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface
areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and
instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website.
8. PAVEMENT: Sherman, Birch, and Park were recently resurfaced -- these streets are under a moratorium. Any
cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site
Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Sherman, Birch and/or Park
based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum
pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and
label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan.
9. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are
maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the
monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and
label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district.
10. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control
measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to
guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The
maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to grading and building permit issuance. The City will
inspect the treatment measures yearly.
Utilities WGW
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building
Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.:
1. The plans are to be updated per the WGW review comments issued 10/18/2017.
2. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet
per unit for each unit on the property for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the
information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and
sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads
3. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and
location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way.
4. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and
location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters,
backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any
other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles
showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication
duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to
verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains
and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to
handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and
construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services.
2.b
Packet Pg. 31
16
6. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements
7. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all
existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California
administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the
owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for
domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
8. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire
system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through
7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent
to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector
assembly on the plans.
9. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or
added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other
facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
10. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel
shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans.
11. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per
WGW utilities procedures.
12. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over
existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the
vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing
utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field
conditions.
13. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters;
lesser distances require a permanent impermeable root-barrier a minimum of 3ft horizontal from water,
gas and wastewater services/mains/meters .
14. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water,
gas & wastewater.
Utilities Electrical
1. Main electric panel shall be at grade and outdoor. The proposed design shall have the location of the main
electric panel.
2. The proposed building is two stories deep which might require long tie-back to reinforce the shoring walls.
Applicant shall work with Electric Utility prior to driving these tie-backs onto Jacaranda and part of Sherman
and Birch to avoid hitting the high voltage electric conduits. Applicant shall pot hole where close to these
conduits and electric equipment.
4. No tree drip-line near electric equipment (including conduits).
2.b
Packet Pg. 32
17
6. The point of electric power connection to feed the new building at 350 Sherman is one of the following: MH
1610 (manhole 1610), Vault 1609, LB3470 or SW 3469
8. The point of connection for fiber is a communication box near transformer 5264.
Public Works Water Quality (Stormwater Management)
1. A covered area for a dumpster would be preferable; the area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and
designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water run-on and runoff from the area. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10)
Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities [if trash area is shown, indicate that the shown area must meet these
requirements as well as the Zero Waste sizing requirements]
2. Submit and follow the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” construction BMP sheet during life of project with
the building permit set.
Before building permit approval, address these:
1. Use rain capture device at the demonstration garden and include description in interpretative signage.
2. Highly consider using rain chains or similar along vines and other walls/building corners.
3. Storm drain/drop inlets
Inlets should be labeled with a ‘Flows to Adobe Creek’ message.
4. Stormwater treatment measures
Consider using low-maintenance permeable pavers in the plaza to be part of the demonstration area.
Appropriate specs must be followed.
Installation vendor specs should be followed, though vendor specs should be reviewed by Parks Maintenance
Staff before installation. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City staff in pertinent
Departments (Public Works, Parks) before occupancy approval. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater
Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 to facilitate this agreement.
Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements.
Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here:
http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details
Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of
stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-
2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan.
Install an interpretive sign regarding stormwater treatment and pollution prevention. Contact Pam Boyle
Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this text.
5. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org)
Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials
Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines:
http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-
landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. Add this
bullet as a note to the building plans.
6. Stormwater quality protection
Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the
containers.
Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed).
Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping.
Establish a street sweeping maintenance plan in open parking lots. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater
Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this plan.
2.b
Packet Pg. 33
18
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building
Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.:
1. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites
to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that
either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds
state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water
may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code
(16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall
be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee
Schedule.
2. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water
Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. And
PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary
sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms
and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional
information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k)
3. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper
granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building
for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are
exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt,
provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the
definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current
edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
4. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
(i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device
that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation.
(ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock
area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if
equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods
of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on
by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all
rainwater contacting the loading dock site.
5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
6. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming
in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where
alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater
plumbing.
7. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains
Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials,
hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment
2.b
Packet Pg. 34
19
cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and
equipment
8. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
SECTION 9. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be
valid for one year from the original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.77.090.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery received July 19, 2018.
2.b
Packet Pg. 35
Page 1
Ordinance No. 5445
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts),
Sections 18.28.050, 18.28.060 and 18.28.090 to Revise the Public Facilities (PF) Zone
Parking and Development Standards to Allow Council Approval of Exceptions to PF
Development Standards, Including Setback Lines Imposed By a Special Setback Map, and
Required Parking Location for City Parking Facilities in the Downtown and California
Avenue Business District and for Essential Services Buildings, and Make Other Clerical or
Technical Corrections
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards), subsection (a) and Table 2, of
Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as
follows:
18.28.050 Site Development Standards
(a) Development Standards
Table 2
Special Purpose District Site Development Standards
PF OS(5) AC Subject to Regulations
in Chapter or Section:
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (acres) 10 5
Site Width (ft) 250
Site Depth (ft) 250
Minimum Setbacks (ft)
Setback lines imposed by a special setback
map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code
shall apply
Section 18.28.060(e)
Front Setback –(2) 30 30 Section 18.28.060(e)
Rear Setback –(2) 30 30 Section 18.28.060(e)
Interior Side Setback –(2) 30 15 Section 18.28.060(e),
Chapter 20.08
Street Side Setback –(2) 30 24 Section 18.28.060(e)
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 1:1(3) See Table 3 Section 18.28.050(b),
18.28.060(e)
Site Coverage and Impervious
Coverage
Maximum Site Coverage 30%(3) 10% Section 18.28.060(e)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6767C404-0D85-49DC-98CE-BBC7A597E7AD 2.c
Packet Pg. 36
Page 2
Additional Site Area permitted
covered by impervious ground
surfaces
10%(1)
Maximum Impervious Coverage See Table
3(4) Section 18.28.050(b)
18.28.070(m)
Height Restrictions
Maximum Height (ft) 50 25 35 Section 18.28.060(e)
Maximum Height within 150 feet of
a residential district (ft) 35 Section 18.28.060(a)
Maximum Number of Stories 2
Daylight Plane for site lines
abutting a residential district
Initial height (ft) 10
Slope 1:2
Residential Density 1 unit/acre
(1) For cemetery uses, all markers of graves shall be flush with grade level, and shall be considered
impervious area under this requirement.
(2) The minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF public facilities district shall be equal to the respective
front, side, and rear yards required in the most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no yard
adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet and that no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet. See
Section 18.28.060(e) for exceptions to these development standards.
(3) Provided that, for parking facilities the maximum floor area ratio and site coverage shall be equal to the
floor area ratio and site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district. See Section
18.28.060(e) for exceptions to these development standards.
(4) Including buildings and all impervious ground surfaces, calculated pursuant to the provisions of Section
18.28.070(m).
(5) See section Section 18.28.070(r) for specific exceptions to these development standards.
. . .
SECTION 2. Section 18.28.060 (Additional PF District Design Requirements) of Chapter 18.28
(Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to add a new subsection (e) to
read as follows:
18.28.060 Additional PF District Design Requirements
The following additional regulations shall apply in the PF district:
. . .
(e) Development Standards Exceptions
The City Council may in its discretion modify the development standards in Table 2 of Section
18.28.050 and setback lines established by a special setback map under Chapter 20.08 of Title 20, to
achieve community objectives for the following facilities:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6767C404-0D85-49DC-98CE-BBC7A597E7AD 2.c
Packet Pg. 37
Page 3
(i) Parking facilities, including appurtenant structures, within the Downtown and
the California Avenue business district, where the parking facility is the principal
use and is owned or leased, and operated or used, by the City of Palo Alto.
“California Avenue business district” means that area bounded by the following
streets in the city of Palo Alto: Grant Avenue to the south, El Camino Real to the
west, College Avenue to the north, and Park Boulevard to the east.
(ii) Essential Services Buildings as defined in Health and Safety Code section 16007,
as amended, including appurtenant or ancillary structures.
The exceptions shall be included in the review of the project through the applicable
development review process.
SECTION 3. Section 18.28.090(a) (Parking and Loading) of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose
(PF, OS and AC) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
18.28.090 Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional uses
in accord with Chapter 18.40. All parking and loading facilities on any site, whether required as
minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum requirements, shall comply with the
regulations and the design standards established by Chapter 18.42. In addition, parking facilities shall be
subject to the following regulations:
(a) PF District
In the PF district, no required parking space shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the
street property line of any required yard. The City Council may waive this requirement for eligible
parking facilities and Essential Services Buildings through the process provided in Section 18.28.060(e).
. . .
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection,
sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any
portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The environmental impacts of this ordinance have been examined and disclosed
pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related
state implementation guidelines and regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), under that certain Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Avenue
Garage project (“Final EIR”) considered and certified by the City Council on June 11, 2018, for which
findings were adopted by Council by Resolution No. 9772, all prior to Council approval of this ordinance.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6767C404-0D85-49DC-98CE-BBC7A597E7AD 2.c
Packet Pg. 38
Page 4
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED: June 11, 2018
PASSED: June 25, 2018
AYES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, FINE, HOLMAN, KNISS, KOU, TANAKA, WOLBACH
NOES:
ABSENT: SCHARFF
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
__________________________________ __________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________________ __________________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
__________________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6767C404-0D85-49DC-98CE-BBC7A597E7AD 2.c
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Wynne Furth, Peter Baltay,
Robert Gooyer
AGENDA ITEM 3.
PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]:
Consideration of a Major Architectural Review of (1) a New Three-Story Public Safety Building
With Attached Emergency Telecommunications Facility at 255 Sherman Avenue, and (2) a New
Four-Story Parking Structure to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces above and below grade.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Council Action Requested for Modification
to Public Facilities Development Standards. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact
Report is Being Prepared and Publications is Anticipated in Mid-October. Zone District: PF; Public
Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French
amy.french@cityofpaloalo.org
A public speaker spoke to Item 3 prior to Item 3:
Ms. Jessica Roth: I just need a few seconds. I am a long-time merchant on California Avenue.
Chair Lew: Could you state your name for the record, please?
Ms. Roth: My name is Jessica Roth...
Chair Lew: Thank you.
Ms. Roth: …and thank you for your time this morning. I am here because I’m getting very, very excited
about this project. It’s been a long time coming and I’m happy that the Public Safety building is going to
be in its new location. I feel like it’s a very good choice. The parking garage, very happy with the size and
space that the City has directed. I just want to make sure that today there are few things covered. One is
that the Ash Street side of the parking garage is designed and as much thought put into as the new
Public Safety side of the parking garage. I just don’t them to look at this as one big project and they
think oh, well we’ll make this one really nice area where the Public Safety building and the garage will be
together. I would like consideration for both sides of the parking lot and the other is that has been some
express from some of the other merchants and community that we just really want to make that that
arcade covered pathway is well thought out. We don’t want to make it an overly desirable location for
long-term residents. So, those are just my two thoughts today, thank you very much for your time.
Chair Lew: Ready for item number three which is a public hearing for a quasi-judicial item, 250 and 350
Sherman Avenue. Consideration of a Major Architectural Review of (1) a new three-story Public Safety
Building with attached Emergency Telecommunications Facility at 255 Sherman Avenue, and (2) a new
four-story parking structure to provide 636 public parking spaces above and below grade. The Planning
and Transportation Commission review and Council action are requested for modification to Public
Facilities Development Standards. The environmental assessment is an Environmental Impact Report is
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXCERPT MINUTES: October 19, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
2.d
Packet Pg. 40
City of Palo Alto Page 2
being prepared and publications is anticipated in mid-October. I think that’s coming later and the zone
district public facilities. We have our Chief Planning Official Ms. Amy French who is here. Welcome, Amy.
Ms. French: Thanks for the introduction. The last the Architectural Review Board saw this project was as
a preliminary review on June 1st of this year. We have on the screen the site context. The order of
processing on this is a little complex and that is because it involves a change to the regulations in the
Public Facilities Zone District to enable these important projects to go forward. The Staff report noted
that we would request a continuance to enable the publication of the Environment Impact Report.
There’s been a delay in the publication and that will not be published until November. As it terms out we
are reviewing the administrative draft currently so when you do continue this, which we are asking you to
do, it can be to a date uncertain. That will enable us to re-advertise once we are ready. The Planning and
Transportation – likewise, the Planning and Transportation Commission – this is for the public, we did
advertise that we were going to have a meeting next Wednesday, October 25th to talk about the Public
Facilities Zone regulation changes. That is – that meeting is not going to take place and again, related to
the delay in the release of the Environmental Impact Report. The architect provided a summary of the
June 1st ARB comments on the preliminary design. The dynamic massing concept was brought forward
and now has much more articulation to a level of a Formal Application which we received. Excuse me,
just to note that the HRB did have a look at this as a prelim. in a study session format. They will not be
reviewing it in the formal capacity because there are no historic resources on the site. The sites are
surface parking lots. On the screen, we have what was seen for the public parking structure on the upper
left and the now modified lower right formal site plan. Some of the changes include relocation of the
elevator -- trying to make this – yeah, the elevator bank is nowhere which allowed the opening of this
arcade – this public passageway from the parking garage to the of muse area that gets pedestrians to
California Avenue retail. The Public Safety Building site plan changed similarly from the June 1st
presentation to today’s site plan. Some of the changes that are – to take place in the next set include a
reintroduction of another driveway and this is to accommodate large vehicles that were having a difficult
time through the alley coming and going. There are some large vehicles for police operations that need
access to this opertations yard so you’ll see that in the next set, a driveway in this location. Oh, and the
other item is in the current set this wall is shown in this placement and in the next set, the wall will be
shown coming towards Jacaranda Lane for reasons that our applicant will explain. We received this
yesterday from our Utilities Department telling us that there are some issues here with existing sewer
and water mains along Birch Street. These trees that are shown here may be deleted from the next set
and we will work out some of these issues in the coming month. There’s an issue also with a prevision of
root barriers to make that the trees will not conflict with water mains in these areas. There is a deletion
of another tree here, again due to proposed water main locations so to (inaudible) say these landscape
plans might be altered prior to next reviewing of this project. With the garage, we have the prior design
that was the dynamic massing approach and now we have this articulated drawing for the Sherman
Avenue elevation. As you see here, there are now photovoltaic rooftop shade structures so those parking
spaces will be shaded and will provide green infrastructure. Here’s the Public Safety Building facing
Sherman Avenue. This is what you saw back on June 1st as a concept and here is it flushed out with
windows and quality materials etc. There’s been a ramp cover added here and this is the ramp that leads
to the employee parking for the police Public Safety Building. Here they’ve added a canopy over the plaza
as civic gesture and here show the alley elevations before and after. So, we’ve had some progress there
with – sorry, I think – yes, this is the parking garage and this is the Public Safety Building. My apologies,
this upper image is the current proposal for the parking garage and this is the current proposal for the
Public Safety Building. We have before and after here for the Birch elevation of the Public Safety Building
and you can see it’s come along way as well with articulation. Then here are the end elevations of the
Public Safety Building and the garage. We have this grand gesture that the architect will explain here on
the parking garage. One item that is to be noted is that we have a proposed tower for emergency
communications and there will be attachments to that tower. It will not be a slim mono-pole with
anything on it. These are images of one on top of a building here in San Mateo and another, I think this
might be Sunny Vale, showing the types of attachments that would go onto an emergency
communications pole. The ARB is charged with reviewing projects for the ARB findings – Architectural
Review findings and just to note, the one about preserving landscaping, those trees in those parking lots
2.d
Packet Pg. 41
City of Palo Alto Page 3
are to be removed and that’s addressed in the Environmental Impact Report. So, that finding will not be
made for this project. Ok, I am going to load the applicant’s presentation and if you have questions.
Mr. Matt Raschke, Senior Engineer for Public Works: Thank you, Amy. I’m Matt Raschke and I’m Senior
Engineer with Public Works and I’m the overall project manager for these two structures and I’m very
excited. This is not only my biggest project to date but it’s the – I think it’s the biggest project for the
City since the building we’re sitting in; City Hall. In terms of timing, this is looked at one project and
we’re looking to build the garage first and get that fully operational so that the parking impact to the Cal.
Ave. Business District is minimized. Just to give you a little update on the public art process, a panel of –
a panel has selected Ball-Nogues Studio to be the public artist for the parking garage and that’s
scheduled to be approved by the Public Art Commission tonight. There’s currently a call for an artist in
progress for the Public Safety Building and those are due November 8th and then a panel will be
convened and they’ll select a finalist to present to the Public Art Commission for that building. Today
we’re really looking for guidance on any necessary changes so that we can get your recommendation of
approval at our next formal meeting. Escalation – construction escalation is a big concern for us but the
overall project cost is significant and it’s growing every day with the escalation that we’re seeing in the
construction field. So, I’d like to introduce Patty Lum, Acting Assistant Police Chief, to give you a little
overview of the need and uniqueness of this building.
Ms. Patty Lum: Good morning Chair Lew and Members of the Board. My name is Patty Lum, I am
obviously a police officer if you haven’t guessed. I’m not an architect and I’m not a planner. I wanted to
share with you a police perspective if I may just for a few moments. I’ve been a police officer with the
City of Palo Alto for 25-years. I’m currently as Matt mentioned, the Acting Assistant Police Chief and I’ve
been doing that since December. I’ve been involved in this project throughout a few different Chiefs,
dating back to 1998 when we completed the third needs assessment for a building. I’ve been actively
involved in this project ever since. In 2011, I had the opportunity to work with a gentleman named Ray
Bacchetti and what a wonderful man who gave so freely of his time as the Co-Chair of IBRC Committee.
Ray sent me the following email, Patty, using my detective skills, I’ve been on the trail of a person who is
2010 said was very intelligent things to [John Northway] and his colleagues who were studying the
option to rebuild a PSB on the current site. That trail lead today to you. If was a police administrator who
recalled that you had framed a concept of a PSB as different from an inert structure that people actually
use. Rather he reported your ideas that the building and the people who use it have a working
relationship with each other and that the building serves and not just houses police officers and therefore
the community at large. As we know, we lost our dear friend Ray in 2015 but not before he and Co-Chair
Leland Levy authored the final IBRC report which urged us to build a Public Safety Building as soon as
possible on a new site. With these thoughts in mind, I am asking that you review this project not only
through your normal criteria but also through a slightly different lens. The City has not built a police
facility in over five decades. This is our greatest project and infrastructure need. It is not a typical project
as you’ve already read and you’ve seen terms such as monopole, operational yard, two ramps on two
different streets, ballistic glazing, hardening, setbacks and so many more unusual but absolutely
necessary public safety criteria. There’s an absolute flow to a PSB and I for one consider the building a
partner in providing exceptional public safety services to the community. The operational aspects of
everything we do has a distinct flow and are already built into these plans. As my colleague [Charles
Cullin] pointed out yesterday, a PSB without a monopole is simply a $75 million warehouse. There is no
operational survivability to the core functions. The PSB must be constructed to function alone, not
dependent on other sources, and imagine if you will a PSB post-natural disaster that does not have the
ability to dispatch fire, police and utility personnel to local sites. Our community expects more from us
and will look to us to pick up the pieces when times are tough. The monopole is not only a critical
element of modern-day PSB, it is also a lifeline to continued operations. You may also question why there
are two vehicle ramps leading underground, one on Sherman and one on Birch. While the primary ramp
exists on Sherman, it is absolutely necessary to have a backup ramp on Birch. In the event that the first
ramp becomes blocked, unusable or impassable, we need those fire, police and [OES] vehicles to be able
to exit on an alternate ramp. Lastly, you may wonder what in the world is an operational yard? I can tell
you this is a critical component of the PSB. Not only do we intend to house back up power in this area
but it’s also a critical secured component of common public safety functions. We’ve never had secured
2.d
Packet Pg. 42
City of Palo Alto Page 4
storage for large-sized vehicles and the yard will provide that. This yard is not a highly populated hub of
activity but rather it allows flexibility to make operational work possible. Lastly, you will hear terms such
as setbacks, security, high ground, glazing, hardening and other unique characteristics to this building. Of
course, we certainly would have enjoyed the luxury of owning a very large piece of property which would
have allowed for the federal standard of 50 to 100-foot building setbacks. We simply don’t have the land
and as a tradeoff, we will be asking for other considerations such as possibly limiting traffic on Jacaranda,
allowing us to build the Jacaranda security wall to the property line, eliminating the Jacaranda sidewalk
improvement in order to keep pedestrian traffic away from the perimeter, and other alternatives. There
really is a method to our madness and our goal is to create a building that is inviting and attractive to the
community yet resilient and secure. I would like to finish with an introduction of our core Public Safety
Staff who have been working diligently on this project; Deputy Fire Chief G.O Blackshire, Office of
Emergency Services Director Ken Dueker, Police Deputy Director of Technical Services Charles Koen, and
Police Senior Management Analyst Mike Dority. We are available to you today to answer any operational
questions you may have that would impact the building. The entire purpose of the PSB is to plan, design,
construct and occupy a secure essential services facility designed to support and protect the critical
operations that occur inside. The PSB includes facility resilience, redundancy, and hardening strategies
which enable it to remain operational both during and after a major disaster. No one knows this better
than our Sonoma based architectural firm Ross Druilis Cusenbery, who for the last week and a half have
undergone the evacuations and serious threats in Northern California. We would all like to think that it
could never happen here but any of these recent disasters, whether they be Las Vegas or Santa Rosa,
certainly could happen in Palo Alto. I urge all of us not to delay. I would like to thank you for your time
and unless you have questions for Staff, I would like to introduce Mallory Cusenbery of RDC Architecture.
Mr. Mallory Cusenbery: Thank you so much. Thank you to the Board, City Staff, thank you to the Police
Department and the Fire Department to the public – members of the public who have come out here for
this. As you recall when we last spoke to you back in June, we had presented three schemes that we
called conversation starters and it really worked. We have wonderful conversations with the community,
with stakeholders, and with you. We processed those comments and have distilled them down –
synthesized them down into the current single design concept that we’re presenting to you now; around
fifty percent schematic design. As we were going through those conversations, there were two quotes
that came from this Board that really rose to the top in our thinking and one of those was having to do
with the civic – the importance of the civic presences and the quote was to create memorable forms that
communicate public function. The second quote was – has to do with context and the quote was, create
the most wonderful expression of this area we can achieve.’ Those definitely have become some guiding
principles as we move forward and I’ll elaborate on that shortly. However, it’s not always that simple as
the Police Department as wonderfully expressed, there are unique things to this kind of a Public Safety
Building that are non-negotiable items. The security, the standoff distances, the ballistic resistance, the
multiple vehicle access and these are unique to the project and they have to be part of it. At the same as
we enter in and talk about civic community pride, scale, massing, contextual response and things like
that, do so in balance. So, this – a lot of our conversation, a lot of design process is a back and forth
process to understand the operational imperatives and being respectful and a visionary toward the
community goals. Then there’s a lot of – then there are some of the observations that we bring to it as
well. Just very briefly, as we’ve had these conversations, the role of the landscape within the community
is – we found it to be a very profound element both physically in the canopy of this area and you can see
the site in orange down below but also in the perception of how this community should feel. The second
component is when we looked at civic presidents, the role of terracotta is profoundly continuous as a
civic element all the way from Leland Stanford through Edward Durell Stone up till the lower right have a
building which is a building that was built I think within the last year in town. Then the third for this area
is this idea of the diversity of scale. This area is not one scale, it’s not one identity. The California Avenue
area is very rich and diverse and can be addressed as such. Briefly, in summary, the project you’re
looking at is on the right. The – again, north is up on the eastern lot C6, the Public Safety Building is
48,000-square feet plus or minus, three-stories above grade and four-stories below grade and the below
grade is parking. There’s one-story outbuildings to the east with the operation courtyard in between and
significant setbacks all the way around for security and pedestrian amenity reasons. The garage on the
left on the west side is approximately 150,000-square feet, four-stories above grade, three-stories below
2.d
Packet Pg. 43
City of Palo Alto Page 5
grade, and photovoltaic panels on the top. It does not have significant setbacks because the goal was to
maximize the quantity of parking but it does have a few pedestrian amenities that mitigate that scale that
we will talk about shortly and it has the photovoltaics on the top. Technically there are a few things that
we – how we approached this site. The first was to kind of organize the two properties with this grid –
this structure and this framework, which in this case is the structure of the cast in place concrete frame
for the building. It’s also the organizational structure that we use integrate – architecturally integrate the
monopole tower. Then onto that framework, we hung what we call our civic points of contact. These are
the memorable forms that we see as the opportunity to communicate public function and they are
archetypal. They are grand entry portal, large protective canopy, they are pedestrian arcades, grand
staircase, and other pedestrian amenities. Very archetypal civic components that are easy to understand
and are very legible in the scheme. Then we overlaid that with the influence of the sun, all sorts of
variations; absorbing the sunlight, diffusing the sunlight, generating power from it, screening it, blocking
it in various forms, and elaborate the material development. Then enveloping that in this oasis of
greening and utilizing the security setbacks as a pedestrian amenity and creating a real environment
here, at least to a scheme that from an urban design standpoint physically fits into the fabric of the
California Avenue neighborhood. Nested within this green structure but then also at a very intricate level
at the pedestrian scale. It’s stress mitigating, it offers a variety of uses, shade, seating, you can come
have lunch here, it’s a generous and kind introduction to those who have to come under stressful
conditions to this project. Then you can see in color the points of contact – civic points of contact with
this idea of bringing the large scale of the project down to these more intimate signposts that help direct
you through the project. I might remind you just on that previous slide that a lot of those pedestrian
amenities are in fact vehicles barriers so again we have that duality between civic opportunity and
operational imperative. That expands to the material as well. We’ve chosen pre-cast concrete and cast in
place concrete because of its ballistic resistance. We have a lot of the screens on the windows because it
helps restrict views, however we don’t stop there. The idea is that there’s a whole pallet of ways of
dealing with the sun, specularity, translucent, shading and those are on the upper left. We’ve introduced
the terracotta as a key civic element that is the point of contact and then the concrete, we’re leveraging
that with these very stone-like and organic textures so that it weaves into this idea of greeny and organic
and landscape presence on the site so again, the duality, operational imperative but vision. Then from a
– briefly and I know you’ve seen this multiple time so this will go quickly. The parking garage on the left,
the main pedestrian arcade is here on the left on Ash and it was addressed from the public opinion at the
beginning to importance of treating Ash as part of the urban design vision and then there’s an arcade
that connects to a paseo here. There’s the grand staircase here and the vehicle entry is on the Sherman
Street here. From the Public Safety side, the entrance to the Public Safety Building is off a plaza, the
plaza is here – the public plaza. Patrol garage entry is here, the operational yard is here and then Staff
entry and exit to the parking structure and backup patrol entry/exit is in this location here. So, let’s dive
into that for a moment, the Police Department very eloquently said – explained the need for the two
ramps and I want to expand on that. It’s actually more than just having two ramps, it’s actually exiting
on two independent streets because if one street is disabled like if it’s flooded, the building has collapsed,
there’s civil unrest; if you cannot use that street, you want the vehicles to be able to exit to a different
street. We assumed Park Boulevard would not be a good idea because it’s your bicycle infrastructure and
Jacaranda was just not physically possible because of spacing so the compromise in this case is to take it
on Birch but mitigate the comments that you had. It included the roof that Amy referred too, it also – we
actually segue into the flow of Jacaranda so when you actually leave the block, you’re leaving in line with
the alignment of the existing Jacaranda so there’s no new curb cut, no cut to the center island. Again,
just to reiterate, patrol vehicles day to day will be leaving here. This is a right in, right out Staff vehicle
ramp that has backup possibilities for patrol vehicles. The secure outdoor area is here for the larger
vehicles and as Amy mentioned, in conversations with the Police Department we determined that it's
going to be very important that this will be subsequent submittal to you to have a large vehicle exit onto
Sherman Street. However, because it’s only intermittently used, we can actually treat that exit with
cobblestones and treat it like a pedestrian environment in that it will actually signal when a vehicle is
coming out; it’s not going to be coming up frequently. Looking then at the site plan for the parking
structure, we have the arcade on Ash Street and again, these ideas – we have a lot of cars, 636 cars
right so 150,000-square feet of bulky garage. We find that the few pedestrian gestures that we make are
going to be very important to mitigate that scale and presence. We observe in this area at lunchtime that
2.d
Packet Pg. 44
City of Palo Alto Page 6
people are coming from the office areas toward California Avenue in groups of – lunch – maybe three,
four, five across. So, providing some width that’s not even currently there so people don’t have to walk
single file as they go through this area. This inspired these ideas of these arcades here and clearing there
is a connection to the existing paseo respecting the existing fabric and then the grand staircase that runs
down the side here. Those are key amenities within a very large building. Then there’s the part of the
plaza and there was a lot of discussion and we received comments from you about the plaza. Our goal in
this go around is to increase the perceived size of the plaza by putting it on both sides of Birch Street and
architecturally reinforcing that presences. The plaza has different characters on the east side of Birch. It
has many qualities to it, sitting, table areas, it does have the vehicle barriers but they are integrated
materially, landscaping and there’s a variety of active and passive uses here. The west side of Birch
Street is primarily passive uses but the architectural reinforcement you can see through this section here.
The idea is to have canopies overhead that jester and create and I think there was a lot of discussion last
time about the gateway quality of Birch and there’s a great opportunity for that. This reinforces that with
the park on both sides of the street. These are few views, this is looking from the Nut House back toward
the entrance to the PSB on the left. You can see the grand staircase and this grand staircase we see as a
huge amenity to the California Avenue merchants in that you can actually walk directly towards Cal.
Avenue. This is looking from the opposite side and a view of the entrance of the building from the
parking structure. Then the scale and fabric of the neighborhood is critical for us as well. You can see the
Public Safety Building on the left, parking garage on the right, the scale comparison to the existing
buildings in the context and that informed a lot of our elevations. So, when you look at the elevation –
the Birch Street elevation of the Public Safety Building, the portal – the terracotta piece is the same
height as the neighboring building here. The top of the building is shorter than the Court House and the
one-story element on Sherman scales down as we go towards the residential areas. This is the
foreground on the top elevation. This is the foreground -- the rest of the building in the background you
can see the foreground building are the same scale as the adjacent there. This is the Jacaranda view
here and that was all elevations of the Public Safety Building and I’ll just show a few close-ups just for
your reference. As we move around the site this is the Sherman side. We do have recessed areas for the
outdoor deck and things like that and providing recesses where we can. Again, focusing our effort on –
and our emphasis on the smaller scale civic components throughout. Sherman Street side and there was
a lot of discussion about the view to the operational courtyard and how that might be? This is a rendering
taken from what we would think is probably the most sensitive condominium across the street that would
look out onto it. It would have the best view possible and we have added a canopy structure here to
screen the vehicles and some landscaping with the idea – I think this rendering shows that you won’t
have direct view of that big paved area. Similarly, for the garage elevations, a lot of it was about civic
presence so this is the grand staircase on Birch Street that heads towards California Avenue on the right.
This is the Sherman Street side with the arcade down here that leads to the paseo but we (inaudible)
integrated the photovoltaics. Part of the idea on the photovoltaics was to actually make them
architectural and then turn them into an architectural element. So, when you see from Birch Street –
again, looking – this is looking toward the southeast – southwest, these are the photovoltaic panels. They
actually create a language that then becomes the canopy over the garage which is over the public
staircase in this location too. So, it is not just – as one of our critics of a lot of photovoltaics installations,
they just look like an add-on and this integral architectural. Sherman Street side breaking down and
again, relative to some of the comments. Even the arcade, the idea is to create an immersive landscaped
oriented environment and in this case with the possibility for glass tile mosaics evoking an immersive
landscape environment. Breeze through because my time is limited. In closing I just want to say that a
lot of the site plans and a lot of these jesters are about connection. So, you can see the entrance here
toward the – it picks up the angle of the Court House. The Court House helps form this plaza and then
the pedestrian entrance and the walkway toward Cal. Avenue. In closing, again, a lot of this project is
about this balance between civic identity, community identity, civic presence but also creating a resilient
and secure Public Safety Building. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you for your presentation. I have two speaker cards, one from Jack Morton and
another one from – I’m not sure if I can read it. Is it Phillip or Phillis? You will have 5-minutes each.
2.d
Packet Pg. 45
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Mr. Jack Morton: I’m going to ask that the second slide that was shown – oh, thank you. My name is Jack
Morton, former Vice Mayor and current Chair of the California Avenue Business Association. You know as
professionals we have an expertise that those we serve expect us to share with them. Sometimes that
expertise prevents us from hearing the reaction of those that depend on that expertise and that’s the
case here with one element of this plan. What’s called an arcade in the architectural delivery, to be frank
in the local language if you want, the vernacular is called a covered pee-pee area. So, let me tell you why
the merchants unanimously voted against having that covered setback. When you see the – first of all, it
takes away parking and our first measure – when you see the revised thing, it takes away about six
parking spaces. We want every possible space to go to parking, particularly when -- the way the
presentation is – if you go back one. Go – right there. So, if you look along the left there’s parking all
along the Sherman side and then there’s this insert that doesn’t – for what sounds like a walkway into
what the boulevard – a boulevard in Paris. It’s a short street and that arcade goes to a blank wall and if
you have ever been there at noon, there is nothing but parked cars on either side and there are cars
traveling around and traveling around looking for parking. When you talk about people walking, they
don’t walk down Ash because it’s just a half a block. They walk down Birch and then go down California
Avenue so all the justifications that architecturally have been given for that covered parkway don’t really
exist. What we want is parking there and we don’t want an area that will be – we think will be used for
desperate housing and desperate sheltering. Apparently when we had our – this meeting, I think we had
it in the middle of tax season but I can’t remember, and apparently, Brad sent me an email saying that
we had to get a written response from the merchants but we went to the public hearing. The public
hearing almost unanimously rejected such an inset so what’s the point of a public hearing if once all of
the merchants who at that point, gave up their business time to come to talk and don’t get heard. I have
to be real frank with you in the language of the street and that we’re looking for your help in redesigning
that area for the six or eight parking places that will be used instead of a covered area that’s not going to
be used by any of the residents, any of the businesses, and we don’t think any of the customers that
come to that area. So, it’s an element that can -- without a lot of design changes can be more functional
than the covered area will be. Thank you very much.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you Mr. Morton and next speaker is Phillip. I can’t read your last name, is it
[phonetics][Lahog]?
[Mr. Phillip Lahog:] Good morning, my name is Phillip [Lahog], you don’t pronounce the ‘g’ and I’m an
(inaudible), not an idiot; French spelling. Well, I’m here to represent three coffee restaurants at the
corner of – well, Jonny’s Café, [La Boyum], [Spalty]. I also represent a bunch of residents who live at the
corner there and I’m one of them. Also, a bunch of small business offices in the basement and I’ve
known the area for well over 30-years. I represent them and to tell you that just like you already heard,
we need parking and we don’t think much of this arcade or whatever you want to call it. We need more
parking and this is very expensive and that thing, as far as we are concerned, would attract homeless
maybe. If you know the area, you know that you find homeless by the Bank of the West. You know there
is a nice protection there and you find homeless on the bench by the corner of Ash Street and California
Avenue. So, our general feeling – we—I don’t have one of us that I represent who is in favor of that
arcade thing. You heard Jack Morton and I thank him for being eloquent. My knowledge of English is not
his – not as good as his. That said, try to maximize the parking. It’s expensive and we need it very badly.
Thirty years ago, we had a crowd at lunch and we’d refuse people. Today there’s no parking, our
customers tell us they can’t afford to wait for 20-minutes to try to find a parking spot so I don’t need to
tell you that the Café and restaurants are hurting badly for lunch. For dinner it’s another story, it’s
working fine but that’s it. Thanks a lot for your attention.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Are there any Board Member questions? Wynne.
Board Member Furth: Could Staff just show us on one of the appropriate slides where the nearest
residences are on all frontages or all sides of this project? We have a number of letters and comments
from residents, I didn’t follow all of them. I followed the comments but not always the letters.
2.d
Packet Pg. 46
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Ms. French: Yes, Amy French here. We have this housing – multi-residential housing here. Similarly, this
is now a mixed-use building and I’m not sure what the date of this Google Docs – Google Earth, sorry.
It’s – Visa is the occupant but there are also housing units in this building.
Board Member Furth: So those are adjacent to the parking structure?
Ms. French: The parking structure is here on this parking lot. Yes, and so that is the proximity, right here,
to those homes.
Board Member Furth: Is there then also housing across Park?
Ms. French: There’s housing back here as well and there’s a little park down below this here; a little
pocket park.
Board Member Furth: But at the top of the slide, adjacent to the Public Safety Building, is that housing as
well?
Ms. French: This is the County Court House and then over back behind off of Park and Grant here, this is
housing back here.
Board Member Furth: About how many feet is it from the nearest point of the parking structure to the
residences at the corner right there, Sherman and whatever? I keep forgetting.
Ms. French: Well, the width of the roadway here so 60 or so feet because of – that is why there’s 150-
foot line that’s drawn with the zoning code for height restriction within that area. So, the Public Safety
Building here is back far enough away from that, 150-feet, but the parking garage here will be within that
150-foot radius of this piece here.
Board Member Furth: Thanks, and then are we maintaining that 150-foot radius or are we eliminating it?
Ms. French: The radius doesn’t disappear but the height within that radius is asked to be exceeded.
Board Member Furth: So, we would eliminate that protection? That usual protection in order to construct
the building?
Ms. French: As far as height limitation, yes.
Board Member Furth: Yes, you would, thanks. Then there was a discussion of reducing or illuminating
traffic on Jacaranda next to the Public Safety Building. Could you tell us more about that? Also, somehow,
I missed that and didn’t focus on what backs up on Jacaranda from the California Side.
Ms. French: Here’s Jacaranda Lane for the Public Safety Building and – so there are commercial buildings.
There is an office building right here and they have their only access from Jacaranda so they currently
walk –park here and walk to their office space. There’s a little garden kind of entry for those and so
originally Staff was looking at having them provide a sidewalk with this project so that those – Staff had a
conversation with those office employees or the owner of that building and suggested that a sidewalk be
included. With the security requirements for the operational yard, the applicant team is seeking to not
have a sidewalk adjacent to the opertations yard.
Board Member Furth: So, you’d have people walking in the street?
Ms. French: In the alley, Jacaranda Alley as they do now.
Board Member Furth: Right.
2.d
Packet Pg. 47
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Ms. French: The alley – the elevation of the alley is the same as the sidewalk so coming from Park, they
would walk on the alley to their business; that’s how they go today.
Board Member Furth: So, do we propose to – does the City propose to cut off pedestrian and vehicular
traffic in portions of Jacaranda or none of it? What’s the thinking here?
Ms. French: I don’t – I know that pedestrian access would not be cut off. I think there’s an exploration of
having those bollards that disappear and reappear perhaps but we clearly have an exploration there
because there is parking space back here. So, the folks that have businesses on this street will need to
get to those parking spaces and so there would become kind of access system for those – for the
employees/business owners of those businesses.
Board Member Furth: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Wynne, just to clarify. On the Visa building, the mix-use component, the residential
component faces the park so there isn’t – it’s all commercial facing…
Board Member Furth: So, it’s all – right, on the Visa building.
Chair Lew: … Sherman Avenue.
Board Member Furth: But the Visa building is not the corner building right or it is the corner building?
Chair Lew: It’s on the corner.
Ms. French: It’s this corner where the cursor is, this is the Visa building.
Board Member Furth: Right, I was looking at the other corner nearest to the Court House.
Ms. French: Yeah, this is…
Chair Lew: No, that’s part of the…
Ms. French: …all residential.
Board Member Furth: That’s all residential.
Chair Lew: Right and that’s part – that one little building is part of the larger complex of the housing.
Board Member Furth: I was just trying to figure out where people actually live with respect to these
buildings. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Any other questions? Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Yes, two questions, one for Staff or the applicant. What is the height of the
parking garage as proposed right now? I just couldn’t figure it out from the drawings so (inaudible).
Mr. Cusenbery: It will be – right now it is 44-feet to the top of the guardrail and then the additional
height to the top of the photovoltaic panels for clearance so probably under 50-feet.
Board Member Baltay: That was my question really was to the top of the panels? That’s what I see as the
height of the building.
Mr. Cusenbery: To the top of the panels and so it would be under 50-feet.
2.d
Packet Pg. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Board Member Baltay: The intention is to keep that within 50-feet, the height limit it?
Mr. Cusenbery: Yes, it is.
Board Member Baltay: I guess to Staff, I just want to be clear that the panels are considered part of the
height of the building, is that right?
Ms. French: That’s correct because they are not just panels, they are the structure that supports the
panels. If they were just panels on a roof, we would not count that as height; the solar panels
themselves. The height limit on that corner is actually 35-feet, not 50, within that 150-foot radius, just to
be clear.
Board Member Baltay: What I am trying to do is just be clear when City Council looks at this, what the
actual limit is and what they are supposed to be approving? I don’t think this can be done without going
to 50-feet and that’s not necessarily a design problem but I want it to be clear for the record that we’re
approving something that’s considerably bigger.
Ms. French: Yeah and technically again, the Council is going to be asked to approve the zoning code
changes for Public Safety Building and for public parking garages within the PF zone.
Board Member Baltay: The second question is for the Deputy Police Commissioner which is regarding the
outdoor service yard and perhaps just enlighten me a little bit more what the function is there and why
that’s necessary? I’m just consistently finding that I have a problem with such a large outdoor functional
space on this valuable land and why can’t it be down in the garage?
Ms. Lum: Sure, Patty Lum again, so the operational yard is kind of like our catch-all. We have these large
vehicles; we have a CSI vehicle which is rather large and it doesn’t fit underground. We have a SWAT
vehicle and it doesn’t fit underground. We have other equipment and so and deliveries that need to come
in hopefully at ground level so it’s dropped in those areas there. We have an evidence processing area in
there for vehicles which is a tow truck pulling in, dropping a vehicle and doing CSI work in one of those
buildings there. So, there’s – it’s basically a storage, kind of operational component where we need street
access and doesn’t fit underground.
Board Member Baltay: Are you aware of any other Public Safety Facilities in the area that do have that
sort of facility underground or some of it underground?
Ms. Lum: I have not seen those large vehicles go underground. Mallory?
Mr. Cusenbery: What I would say is the other factor to this plays the limitations of the site because if you
can have an extensive ramp that gets you down with a slow slope over like say on a suburban site with
lots of lands and an open ramp, it facilitates getting down a little bit easier. The headroom on some of
these vehicles is almost 13-feet high and so the headroom issue, the ramping issue, the bottoming our
issue several impacts the subterranean parking. In urban areas where it’s tighter, it's more common for
those to be at grade.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Any other questions? None? Kyu.
Vice Chair Kim: I just have a very quick question. Is there a location for the flagpole?
Mr. Cusenbery: I’m getting shot a look. Yes, there is and that is our oversight and the location for the
pole – if you could switch back to the – to our screen. The location for the flagpole which is not currently
in the rendering is right here.
2.d
Packet Pg. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Vice Chair Kim: At that corner?
Mr. Cusenbery: At that corner so that it signals it as a public building and it has the – the flag poles will
be spaced – several flag poles and there will be a significant flag presents.
Vice Chair Kim: Thank you.
Board Member Baltay: To be clear, that’s the flagpole for the American flag, not the monopole, is that
right?
Mr. Cusenbery: Correct, that’s the flagpole, not the monopole. The monopole appears – it’s the back of
the site and you can see it – I’m trying to find the appropriate view, momentarily. So, you can see it –
that wispy shape in the distance because we’re not – we haven’t rendered it with things on it but right
there is the monopole. The height, I’m going to put the dot at the height and that’s the height. That’s
135-feet above the ground and yes, there will be things on it.
Vice Chair Kim: There was mention that they’re going to – there’s going to be a crowns nest or some
other attachment to this monopole. Can that monopole really come to a needle end like that or will it
have to be substantially thicker?
Mr. Cusenbery: Well, part of that is just the deception of the rendering. The monopole will have this kind
of diameter and it will probably – it can taper. We have done them when they taper but a needle would
not be the description. It still has a structural radius at the top.
Vice Chair Kim: Ok.
Chair Lew: I have a question for you.
Mr. Cusenbery: Yes.
Chair Lew: On the materials, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the materials – a little bit
more about the materials so I think there’s concrete. I think the Staff report mentioned that you’re going
to color the concrete and also, I was curious about the textures that you’re proposing. I think you are
showing different colors in the renderings; like the darker color…
Mr. Cusenbery: Correct.
Chair Lew: … on the – I think it was like on the alley and I was curious also about graffiti and that kind of
thing on the building.
Mr. Cusenbery: The – as with any solid surface it can be vulnerable to graffiti. There is the opportunity to
seal the concert with a graffiti resistant and we have done that. It changes the tonality of the concrete a
bit but the intent on the ground level concrete is actually to have that darker. So, what it does it you’re
looking for that perfect museum smooth grey, that’s what gets darkened but we would actually be
starting with a rougher texture and a dark concrete, to begin with. To be clear, the board form is what’s
at the ground level on the left and then the deeper texture, which also comes in two tones, would be up
high. Sorry, I’m not sure if I’m answering your question.
Chair Lew: No, I think that helps and the color (crosstalk) you are showing…
Mr. Cusenbery: So, you can see it there.
Chair Lew: Sure. In the drawing your showing mostly grey and then I think in the Staff report it mentions
that it was going to be more earth – maybe like an earth tone color or where you thinking about a
pigmented color?
2.d
Packet Pg. 50
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Mr. Cusenbery: Yes, we can and I would say that’s definitely an avenue of further design exploration. If
we were consistent within the design concept, which is that it’s kind of organic and earthy and rocky.
There’s a range of earth colors and tones that would be appropriate so absolutely.
Board Member Furth: I would note that it has a composition roof.
Chair Lew: Then the – on the canopy on your cornice.
Mr. Cusenbery: Yes, that is a polycarbonate.
Chair Lew: It’s polycarbonate, ok, excellent.
Mr. Cusenbery: Translucent polycarbonate and that’s – it is an essential facility so we can’t put glass up
there and we don’t want to put anything solid up there yet we want the translucent so that’s why we
chose that.
Chair Lew: Ok and then… (crosstalk)
Mr. Cusenbery: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Ok, thank you for that. Then on the – I think I do like the terracotta screens and I think you
are showing a second screen which is…
Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, there’s a lighter color and so…
Chair Lew: A lighter color and is that metal (crosstalk) and is that what’s on the windows?
Mr. Cusenbery: No, they are both – they are two shades of terracotta.
Chair Lew: Two shades of terracotta.
Mr. Cusenbery: So, again that’s the terracotta – color terracotta material that’s on the left and is more
prevalent on the parking structure and the terra – the beige colored terracotta material that’s on the
right, fourth from the left, that would be on the Public Safety Building.
Chair Lew: Got it, ok, thank you. Any other questions? No. Who wants to start? Peter?
Board Member Baltay: Ok, thank you very much. Thank you for the very eloquent presentation and all
the Staff work from City Council Members, from police and Council Members and stuff. I’d like to start
with the parking garage building. I think it’s coming along nicely and it will be a large building that will
look quite nice. I think the elevations along Ash and Sherman Street are interesting, there’s a nice mix of
open and solidness. I think it will be a handsome parking garage. I like – I think that the broad staircase
coming up along Birch Street is a great idea. It’s going to make it very nice for people as far as flowing in
and out to California Avenue. It’s great to have that on a parking garage. I’m concerned that the way it’s
rendered now or the way it’s designed is it’s just not quite there; it’s too severe. If I reference the
drawing on page 1.06 the concrete wall to the right of the stairs as you go up, it just feels too harsh.
Mr. Cusenbery: Is that the one you’re talking about?
Board Member Baltay: Yes, that one there. As I understand it that’s some sort of formed textured
concrete and you’re trying to say that that’s got a textured friendly powerful presence. To me, it’s just a
30-foot tall wall of concrete and it kind of goes against the idea of it being a warm welcoming area. The
openings through it are just sort of big (inaudible) holes that you go through. I’m also concerned that the
space underneath the stairs, as it’s shown here, is really a great sleeping refuge for people and I think it
2.d
Packet Pg. 51
City of Palo Alto Page 13
needs to be just more thought through. The concept I’m finding very nice but the execution is not quite
there. I think you’re going to find out that a constant theme in my comments here. Your talk is great,
you’re saying the right words but I’m not seeing it in the design here so that staircase is one of those
cases. So, softer detailing, more care at the doors, more care below the stairs, perhaps just more
openings in the wall somehow so you can see where you’re going in and out of it. In the same vein, the
cut out along the side of the alley that the merchants seem to speak about, I guess I agree with their
comments that you already have the alley for people to walk through so I don’t see a need to cut the
building out. I’m not sure the renderings are quite accurate to the plans but it seems to me you could
reconsider that and it wouldn’t be a big loss to the overall concept of what you’re doing. If there’s that
much support from within the community not to have that, you ought to be listening to that. I had
expressed concern earlier about the height of the parking garage and I just wanted to be clear to the City
Council mostly that this is a large, massive building. It’s to the height limit, it’s to the setbacks and that’s
because they’ve asked to have 600 and something cars in this building. There’s no way around it, you
can’t mince words on that. That’s what the community wants and the Council needs to understand that
crystal clear when they vote for it that’s what they are doing and that’s our job to tell them that. So, 50-
feet, for example, is the height limit that goes to the top of the panels. It’s not some mechanical feature
and things like that. I had made an earlier comment about a second entry into the garage and I just
wanted to clarify. I think your circulation works fine but many garages I’ve been in and out of having two
ways to drive in and out and it just makes it a lot easier for vehicular circulation. I can see where you’re
not wanting to pursue that here given all the other constraints you have but that was the gist of that
comment. Overall, the parking building I think is really – it’s almost there in my opinion. The Public Safety
Building I’m afraid I have serious reservations about. I’m not even sure where to start but all the words
sound great. This is the least civic building I can imagine and it’s just not attractive. If I could get you to
pull up on the screen, there’s a rendering you have from California Avenue. Let’s see, it’s shown on page
1.04 in the upper left corner.
Ms. Cusenbery: Is that the one?
Board Member Baltay: There’s a close-up view of that same corner; a little bit further along in your
presentation. That’s it, right there. I think that word – the vision just speaks volumes for the problems
here. This is not a civic building, it’s not a friendly building, it’s not attractive, it’s downright scary. This
mouth coming out with police cars shooting out from underneath is something out of Star Wars. I mean
it’s just not appropriate and it really isn’t working. That large canopy hanging over the public plaza scares
people. I just – I know that you have serious constraints about security, safety, ballistics, and setbacks.
The Police Commissioner started her beautiful presentation with the words about wanting to welcome the
public and make it everybody come together. Look at that image? Do you see that? I don’t. We’re
building a building for the next generations to come. Our grandkids will be walking by this and looking at
it. We want them to look like they did at the old police station Birge Clark built for us. I just don’t see it.
I’m really sorry to be so strong about it but it’s not there. That said, the parking entrance coming out on
Birch, I think is just a non-starter. There must be some other way to do that. This image to me shows
crystal clear how that just takes away from any chance of making this a public plaza. It’s really a secret
entrance for police vehicles, especially with the special barriers and the car coming out with lights
flashing. I mean it couldn’t do more to turn the community away. You just can’t have it there. Anybody
who works and lives and commutes in that area knows how important that stretch of Birch Street is and
more so as time goes on with all the development there. We need to do everything we can to make this
plaza more welcome, more open to people and not ugly and off-putting and scaring pedestrians away.
My second issue had to do with my question about the open yard in the back and I fully appreciate the
difficulties of finding ways to fit all these important functions in here. However, that open yard is what
pushes the building to the front and makes the plaza so small and I think there it really is a tradeoff of
how much we have to get the police functions really met versus how much we want to have a bigger
plaza in the front. I’d like to be clear with my colleagues, with City Council and with everybody else who’s
a decision maker on this that by having that secure outdoor parking meeting the standards that the
police have put forward, it makes the public plaza half the size it could be and half as nice as it could be.
California Avenue doesn’t have a big public plaza the way we have several downtowns. This is our chance
to make that and we do that by planning and by compromising. In my opinion, we should be finding a
2.d
Packet Pg. 52
City of Palo Alto Page 14
way to minimize the outdoor parking yard for the police through other technical design means to make
the plaza bigger. We only have on chance to make a real public plaza and that’s at this stage of the
design process. It’s just the land is too valuable to not figure a way to make that work, it’s just too small
of the plaza. The elevation of the building, if you can go back to that rendering again. I’d like to leave
that rendering up there as long as possible. That one, please; anyone of these. I mean it’s just a big
concrete box, it really is. I’m so sorry to be aggressive about it but I find it so unpleasant to look at. The
thought of the textured concrete is nice, the terracotta is nice, all the words are good, all the pieces and
the images of other projects have a potential but the concrete doesn’t cut it. The roof cornice, that very
large overhang like that but that’s also 30-feet above the ground or something and I’m scared looking at
that. I’m afraid it’s going to topple over in an earthquake and I’m sure I won’t be the only one who would
say that to you. It’s out of scale, it’s not integrated, and if feels like an afterthought that some
Architecture Board said put something on the box. Lastly, I’m concerned about the monopole. Initially, I
thought this elegant spiral was going to look very nice but when you see imagines of what it looks like
elsewhere and it becomes really a crow’s nest of equipment and that changes all the time. We see that
on the current issue with cell phone towers on how quickly engineers add and change and the next thing
you know you have wires and antennas of every shape and color and size and mounted in every
conceivable fashion. I suppose that’s not so much an Architectural Board issue anymore but I’d like to be
clear with the Council at least that they see what they are approving here. It’s a very tall, very ugly
looking pole and I’d love it if you could find some way to shroud it. Put it inside a different kind of tower,
do something that other architects and generations of communities would do when you (inaudible). If
you needed a clock tower, you made a real tower with a clock in it that looks attractive. We seem to be
just governed by an engineering requirement here. We all agree we need this tower, we all agree – the
police are telling us it has to be on this site. Granted, what do we generally do then when architects
where proposed with a challenge like that? We just sort of say ok well, whatever, I guess we have to
have it or can we go back and do what was done in Renaissance Italy? You made a tower that was an
eloquent jester to the community. You do something else to make it work because right now – I mean
this is again California Avenue. It’s an important civic part of our town and we’re putting this 135-foot
tower draped with wires with every shape of antenna just because that’s what Technical Security
Engineering needs and we’re not going to do anything else for it? I don’t want to keep going on but we’re
missing something here. This is a building for our future generations and we’re not connecting. Thank
you.
Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you for your comments.
Chair Lew: Let’s see, who next? Kyu.
Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, thank you for your presentation. I, unfortunately, wasn’t at the preliminary hearing
for this project but there’s a lot to look at and I agree the presentation was quite nice. The words and
descriptions that you put forth are very eloquent and elegant but I also have a problem with some of the
actualities of the architecture. I guess I’ll take it in a similar fashion and start with the parking garage. I
agree that the parking garage is probably a little bit more there and closer to something that I could
recommend for approval and recommend to Council but I do also completely understand the concerns
brought forth by the neighboring people there and talking about that pedestrian arcade. While it is a
great idea and it’s something that was presented as something that could be a real feature to the parking
garage. I just don’t think that it’s going to work the way that it’s envisioned and perhaps there’s a way to
maybe make it a little bit less rectangular of an arcade but I think the overall use of that is – I can so
easily imagine just vending machines being through up against that wall in the arcade and it being not
very well maintained. The – I also agree that while the circulation inside the garage itself looks to
function quite well, I am concerned of that the fact that there is only one in and out of the parking
garage. Another thing that I noticed with these great stairs and I – you have that great stair on the Birch
Street side. You also have a fairly nice stair coming down the arcade on the Ash Street side but my
concern with both of those stairs is that if you’re somebody that’s parked on an upper story when you’re
coming back to the garage and you – I just don’t see anybody taking those stairs. Especially when the
stairs and the elevator entrances don’t face one another. You’re not really given an option and I think
everybody is going to want to take the elevator and those stairs are going to be rarely used by anybody
2.d
Packet Pg. 53
City of Palo Alto Page 15
actually traveling up. I agree with the comment on the stairs on the Birch Street side but it’s just too
massive of a wall on the parking garage as you’re going up or down and I realize that you’re trying to
make that a little bit more of a relief with any kind of an art installation. I still think just the scale of that
wall is going to be quite daunting to anybody traversing the stairs. I think that’s it for the parking – oh,
one more thing for the parking garage is for the solar panels. While I really appreciate the fact that
you’re presenting these solar panels to us early as opposed to some of these other retrofit projects that
we’ve seen. I think the vertical support structures of the solar panels themselves, because they are
located at the very exterior of the parking garage, they add an element of extra bulkiness and mass that
could perhaps be relieved if you’re able to bring those columns inwards so that the building looks a little
bit less tall than it actually is. Moving onto the Public Safety Building…
Mr. Cusenbery: I – just a brief question? There are a few items that I could add to this. Should I add it at
the end?
Vice Chair Kim: I think at the end would probably be a little bit more appropriate.
Vice Chair Kim: For the Public Safety Building, I’m actually not so concerned about the monopole. That
term really bothers me because if it’s a pole, it’s a single pole. Why do we have to call it a monopole? I’ve
dealt with other pole related projects and I think while it is something that we need to look at and it
shouldn’t be overlooked. I think eventually it will kind of disappear and I’m not so concerned about the
height or any kind of attachments made to it as long as the attachments are matching the color of the
pole. The building itself, I think Board Member Baltay really hits those points that it just doesn’t look like
a very welcoming building to me. I was looking at that front plaza façade and just something about it is
really not right in my mind quite yet. I appreciate the fact that you’re trying to break out the mass and
introduce the elements that are smaller and of different proportions but I don’t know if it’s the depth of
the plaza versus the height of the building or what it is exactly. Maybe it’s the entry portal that you’re
showing there being 2 ½ or maybe even 3-stories; I guess it’s 2-stories. Just something there doesn’t
feel quite warm enough yet and I also think that the materials that you’re proposing are just much to
grey and too much of a cool grey. I think the only thing that you’re doing to really warm up the building
and the site is the use of landscaping and the terracotta and that similar redder shade but I don’t know if
it’s just the combination of those two materials but there seems to be a very difficult balance of the
warms versus the cools. Overall, I think it’s just too blocky. Everything I see about the building is a
rectangle. Each façade is – each elevation is a rectangle, the portal is a rectangle, and the only angle or
diagonal I see is really out of that plaza which is kind of a nice jester relating to the true north orientation
–northwest – cardinal axis orientation of the Court House and also that housing project also has that alley
cut. That’s a true north, south cut but I’m just wondering if maybe that portal could be rotated. Another
thing about that portal is that it makes it appear as if once you walk into the portal, you’re walking into
the building but the fact that you have to make a 90 degree turn to get into the building itself is also
something that I don’t see – feeling quite right. I said everything is a rectangle, everything is a block and
even the canopies that you are proposing at the opertations yard. Do they have to be so flat and so
rectangular? Is there any way we can introduce some angles or even curves or something a little bit
more organic that will make the building and sit feel a little bit more welcoming? I completely agree with
Board Member Baltay’s comments about the operations yard. While I definitely understand the need for it
so if there is anything that can be done to maybe even make the operations yard a two-story structure so
that we can begin to increase the plaza? It seems like such a large amount of space that we’re dedicating
to an on-grade facility that doesn’t have anything above it, isn’t really giving much to the community, and
because of what’s going on there, I can imagine that everything on even the Park Boulevard side as your
passing the building, is going to be so guarded and so kind of turning its back on the rest of the
neighborhood. Something that was said in the earlier presentation with memorable forms and trying to
create something that is going to make Palo Alton’s proud of this building but also people that visit
California Avenue to have something to remember and I just don’t think it’s quite there yet. Having said
that, I really applaud your presentation, the packet, and the renderings. Everything you’ve said, I think
we’re on the same page as far as trying to accomplish the right things but as far as getting there, I don’t
think we’re quite there yet, especially with the Public Safety Building. Thank you.
2.d
Packet Pg. 54
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you. A couple comments that I would just point out for…
Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, just for one second. Chair, I don’t know if you want to continue to go through Board
Member comments and then get comments from the applicant at the end or if you want to have the
dialog or how you want to approach that?
Chair Lew: If it’s quick. If you have just a quick thing.
Mr. Cusenbery: Two just quick points that I think will just elaborate the comments. One relative to the
arcade and the openness and the concern that it would be someplace that would provide shelter and also
might be a target of public urination. I just want to remind everybody that the entire garage is open 24-
hours a day so the entire ground level of the garage provides shelter and provides opportunity if public
urination. So, if there is that concern, the concern might be larger than just the arcade so that was one
point. The second point that I was going to mention is that a lot of this you’ve heard there’s push-pull
between operational imperatives and the civic presence and civic identity. I’m trying to find a rendering
as I speak here. The issue with the parking garage is that there is a vulnerability for the Public Safety
Building from people being able to be on the parking structure and have sightlines to the Public Safety
Building. So, it is a very specific security design intent to actually create as much as a wall as possible
and that is an operational driver. So, in fact, sneaking in a couple openings are the compromises from
that standpoint. So, that is – then the concrete that you are seeing is actually a concrete shear wall so its
double use of the functionality of the concrete but expanded with the intent of minimizing the threat of
an active shooter.
Chair Lew: Thank you.
Board Member Furth: Good morning. Thank you for the presentation and it gave us an enormous amount
of information. Thank you all for that, it was very helpful and overwhelming. I mean I first worked as a
layperson and not architect on a police station project in 1978 so before a number of you were born. We
failed, we had big lead pollution problems on the firing range which we had to abandon. So, I know these
are difficult projects but I also know that they can be better than we might think. I’ve been looking at our
former police and fire Public Safety Building that’s now Avenidas and when you look at that and its scale
and it’s landscaping and its design elements and its materials and you look at this, there is no evidence of
civic progress in the last 100-years. In fact, it would seem we’ve gone considerably backward. I
understand the reality of more high explosives, more vicious weapons, more elaborate
telecommunications and I understand that we’re building something that has many elements of a
fortress. In the last few months, I’ve been spending a lot of time around fortresses in the Mediterranean
and they can be engaging as well while still keeping their essential secured aspect. I’m sorry to be so
emotional about this but I thought it was just me but when I looked at that first cover illustration, I
thought it looked like (inaudible) the entry, I thought that’s how you get into the Death Star. That big,
dark looming presence, very rectangular and that’s what you fly your jet into and that’s not what we
want to do I don’t think. Then I looked at the very high entryway, which as somebody points out doesn’t
really enter you into the building and I’ve spent so many hours listening to the Planning Commission and
Staff of this City and the citizens talk about how they don’t like double height entries and I’m thinking
what are we doing? What civic jester are we making here? I want a civic jester that does not make me
feel small, that makes it clear to me where I’m going, that invites me in, and I mean I’m happy if you put
up – I guess they’ve got the – I mean I guess you’re going to put the blindfolded justice across the
street. I’m happy with big civic sculptures, I’m happy big landscaping, I’m happy with big useful plazas,
I’m happy with clearly marked entries, I’m happy with lot so flags but this – I mean this is what we
learned when I was in college was an element of something a little more authoritarian than I think we
want here. We were taught that this was an element – a classic element of fascist architecture using the
technical term, not the overall emotional one. Ok so having exposed my insecurities about the project.
The garage, first of all, I think that the solar panels are the most important civic statement in the whole
thing because to me they signal that the government is paying attention and trying to do something
because none of this will matter if we don’t get a handle on greenhouse gases. So, I like them, I like
them being visible and I’m so happy you’re showing them to us now. I like what I think the staircase is. I
2.d
Packet Pg. 55
City of Palo Alto Page 17
like the concept but I don’t think that a 50-foot wall has to be awful but I know that depends on how
wide the staircase is and how substantial the railings are. They look radically under designed here and I
keep thinking of the beautiful railings I see in the Mission in San Francisco. I know that’s completely
different scale and I think about the railings in the San Francisco Civic Center. This is, as you point out,
not a suburban building. It’s not a suburban – you know we’ve built a lot suburban fire stations around
here and they masquerade as slightly larger houses. In no way is this suburban, this is massively urban
so that means it needs suitably urban levels of – what do we call these things? Railings, doorways,
entries because we can’t plan it out. I like the proposed landscaping. I am so happy – I mean I like the
concept of the proposed landscaping. I’m not going to say that it’s always there. I am so happy that
we’re hearing from utilities now because we have had the very sad experience of looking at the
Charleston/Arastradero plan with fifty or six percent of the trees removed when we get down to actual
construction drawings. So, I am looking forward to hearing how we’re going to have the landscaping
insignificant size anyway, which I do know is possible in most cases. I am going to – I guess the standard
I’d like to meet is you get cert – we get certified by the Auto Bond Society’s excellent backyard habitat. I
mean not just messing around with semi-helpful landscaping for wildlife but serious support for the birds
to hang out here. The Birch Street – not the Birch Street side, the Ash Street side, I think the
neighborhood is right in saying that we haven’t gotten there yet. I think we need a very generous
sidewalk. I think you could make that attractive with properly – it going to be very dark but properly
scaled landscaping. I tend to – as you may know I tend to favor the kind that sort of – plants are at head
height so the planters are at elbow height. You can do that in a way that makes it welcoming for short-
term stays or walking by but not as a habitat. We’ve certainly dealt with peeing, intoxicated affluent
persons in the downtown garage so it’s a good point that the whole garage is an issue. So, my question
is, where’s the nearest accessible public restroom? I mean if you don’t want people peeing in the – some
people you’re never going to have any success but the other people, it would be nice to have one of the
alternatives. What resources are we providing with people? These are people – we have bodies so how
are we accommodating them? On the monopole I agree that we probably ought to call it a
communication tower; its big. It saddens me, not that we can communicate that’s going to be wonderful
but that it’s kind of a marker of a surveilled society and so I don’t think it’s going to disappear into the
background. I think it’s going to loom and I don’t know what we can do. I mean there may be certain
colors that make it recede into the clouds in certain weather conditions; I’ll be interested in that. On the
public plaza I agree that it’s too small. It’s needs to be bigger. One of my questions for you all -- I mean I
was deeply influenced by White Studies in New York when I was young person so I want to know where
do people sit? Where do they chat? Where do people who need backs on their seats sit? Where do
people who need arms on their seats sit so that they can lean on them to get up? How are we
accommodating a wide range of people here? We need to – I don’t think we – having spent a lot of time
enjoying other people’s plazas recently and realizing we don’t have the social structure to support them
here necessarily. I would love to see a plaza that really works. I understand in some Cities further south
on the peninsula they are actually is a plaza life that some of our local communities do come out at
sunset with grandparents and small children and circulate and eat and drink. We’re not going to do that
here and I understand that but we can get started and maybe we have coffee. I’ve certainly walked
through very successful public plaza in Oakland by the Public Library next to the police station. That is
not a particularly buffered area, there’s lots of traffic, there’s lots of people facing hard times but that
plaza works. It takes a lot of landscape maintenance I am sure and it also takes good coffee. I have
pages and pages of notes here but I think much of what I had in mind has been said by my colleagues.
Chair Lew: For everybody on the Board, I think we’re trying – we’re going to try to get this approved in
two hearings so if you have a comment and you think it’s important, let’s just do it now and get it all
addressed. Don’t put it off thinking that we’re going to do another…
Board Member Furth: I don’t think the two-entry works, I don’t think the – and by work, I mean it’s not
inviting and I agree, at least as it’s drawn, that this building is scary which is not what I think the City
wants or the department wants. I think the plaza is too shallow and I hope we can move it back further.
I don’t think that the proposal on Ash Street works and I think it probably needs to be rethought with the
idea of having that perhaps be a showcase for plants, perhaps for tile art but not a lot of ground-level
recess beyond the width of the sidewalk. I hope that we have short-term parking on the ground level of
2.d
Packet Pg. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 18
the garage because people – the first thing I was wondering when I looked at this police building was
where do you park and then of course, across the street and eventually – you’re going to build the
parking lot first. So, I hope we have short-term parking for people coming in and out. That was a
problem in the original design over on Hamilton as well. I want to know more about how Jacaranda is
going to work and that it will work in a way that accommodates the Police Department’s needs. I want to
know about actual furniture and function on the plaza and I want it to function as a place where people
can sit, whatever their state of physical health. I want that great big entry changed to something that
invites me to feel an empowered citizen and not a small person with a big government use of force in
front of me. To Staff, the comments from Pat Beatty about air quality and sunlight for their building at
2516 Birch Street. I want to know if you feel that we have addressed their concerns adequately to make
the findings that this building isn’t going to damage them and the way they live. I will be thrilled – I to
have been following this Public Safety Building project since I got here in 1998 and I to will be thrilled
when the police have – and the community has adequate facilities and I will be thrilled when California
Avenue has the parking they want. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Wynne. I think I’m in agreement with all – almost all of the comments…
Board Member Gooyer: Can I say a few things?
Chair Lew: Oh, sorry.
Board Member Gooyer: That’s ok.
Chair Lew: We’ve been going on for so long. Robert.
Board Member Gooyer: I know this is getting long winded but it – and I have the same thing. I had a
truckload of things but I’ll just trim it down to a few initial comments and just some – an overview
basically. I think one of the problems with this is that because they were both or they are both being
built at the same time, it seems like there was some thought that needed – that these two needed to
relate to each other quite a bit and actually look like one entity. I don’t think that’s really necessary. I
mean we’re talking about a civic building, not a civic garage. I don’t really care if the garage is civic
looking. It’s right across from residences and I don’t really think – I think it’s going very well and it’s
coming along nicely but it could be softened up a little bit. One of those things, as you said was the big
wall and then I see here on some of the sample board you have where it looks like you have a split face
block and it’s like that’s – split-face block is sort of the most severe I’ve ever used. That’s the kind of
thing you use when you don’t want people to stay near it or if you rub your hand across and you end up
with hamburger meat. So, that’s not really a very inviting type situation so I really don’t think we ought
to use that all. Having said that, the whole idea about the plaza is that I keep hearing that the plaza
needs to be larger. I think – let’s face it, the reality of it is, is it is a police station. The police need to do
what they need to do and with the design of these two structures, you could make that plaza the size of
a football field and I would feel uncomfortable sitting in it with those buildings looking down on me. I
mean there’s -- when the concept of civic means severe and large and overpowering, that is not really
my idea. I was involved about 4 or 5-years ago with a police station in another City in the peninsula
larger than Palo Alto and one of the comments that were made there – I was on the Planning
Commission at the time and one of the things that were made there, which I thought was absolutely spot
on, is that if there’s a little – if there is child running up to the police station because they are lost and
they need some help from somebody. If they look at this building, they are going to turn around and run
the other way. There is nothing inviting – I mean the Death Star is probably a bit much but there’s
nothing inviting about that building. Just because – it does look like – somebody made the comment if
you look at our old police building versus this new one, society hasn’t gone in the right direction. Its more
severe and you would expect some machine guns to pop up from the turrets on the corners or something
the way this thing is built. It’s a massive concrete bunker with what I thought was rather strange for the
comments – some of the written stuff was that it’s a cast in place concrete building and the painted and
steel overhangs reflect the civic elements. I mean to me civic elements aren’t steel – painted steel
elements that are added on to it and it’s just – it doesn’t work for me. When I first started reading this, I
2.d
Packet Pg. 57
City of Palo Alto Page 19
like – again, your presentation and the concept and the things that you – the Police Department need are
all spot on and when I started reading the whole idea about Palo Alto presidencies of terracotta and the
off-white, it gives you a softer feel of what you think. Now again, there’s a difference between terracotta
being the color or terracotta being the material but it still has a connotation of something softer. It can
still be civic but it could be more user-friendly, more human scale, and that’s the thing that missing with
this. The first thing you see is those massive concrete walls. I’ll let it go at that and I’m pretty much – I
think most of us are in agreement that this is not – at least the building is not going in the right direction
to make it -- for this group. I’ll let it go at that.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Robert.
Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank you for your excellent presentation. I am generally in agreement with the Board
although I think I disagree with the Board on the operations yard and also, I may be – I may disagree on
the size of the plaza. I sort of am a little undecided on that. I was wondering if you could – instead of
just repeating everything that’s already been said, I was wondering if maybe we could talk a little bit
about – in more detail about some of the design elements and see if there are opportunities. One is the
arcade and just the dimensions of the arcade. Second was the public – I guess it’s like a community room
facing the plaza and it’s like a double height space but the second-floor equivalent face doesn’t have
windows. I was just wondering what the…
Mr. Cusenbery: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: I was just wondering what the constraints were on that – on the conference room? On the
Public Safety Building, on the – Jacaranda, on the alley you have – there’s a courtyard garden and there’s
a wall and you’ve got integrated benches and I was wondering if we could talk about the constraints
happening there? Then I don’t think we’ve talked about it in detail and that was the Park Boulevard
façade and you have a setback and landscaping. I was just curious as to what happened there because
we do have large groups of employees coming down Park and I think you’ve got a double row of trees
and planters but I was just curious as to what else was happening along that wall? If there are maybe
opportunities to get a social place so anyway.
Mr. Cusenbery: I’ll tell you what, I’ll take those one at a time and I’ll do it cynically and if I miss
something I can happily elaborate. The arcade first, the dimensions of the arcade is we have pushed it up
as far as we can within the structural frame of the parking structure. I believe it’s an 11-feet, I hope I am
accurate on that but I think it’s very close to 11-feet. We don’t have – need a beam or I mean a column
– sorry beam in that location so it’s actually the underside of the decking so we can go all the way up
there. Then what we’ve done is within that, we’ve nested – again, using the codification of the civic
elements, the arcade, and the color coding. The idea there would be a possible terracotta frame within
that and then we also identified that as a potential public art site. So, in – of the public artists that we
recently – the opportunities that we have with the various public artists, one of the artists that were – the
one that was selected actually has a president for work within that kind of circulation arcade and is quite
rich. So, the thought is that we would leave that arcade open-ended for further elaboration with the work
of the public artist and see what kind of opportunities come out of that process. The short answer is 11-
feet tall, the width of parking space so around 20-feet wide and the rationale for not having parking
space in that area is that if you picture the City’s sidewalk. The width which is relatively narrow in that
location and directly to your right would be a series of parked cars, which is one experience verses to
your right is a 20-foot arcade that has a staircase going straight up to the garage underneath it and a
public art installation that elaborates it. Just from a professional standpoint, our experience is that areas
that are invested in publicly have less likelihood of vandalism and/or nesting people. Those that are
disinvested or afterthoughts or behind the scenes are the ones that are more likely to have people –
attract people. So, when you compare the arcade, this is just from our approach, you compare the
arcade which people use daily and will be visible versus just on the other side of it, which is the parking
2.d
Packet Pg. 58
City of Palo Alto Page 20
structure where’s this whole ample place for things that – that hope was the arcade would actually
reverse the concerns. So, that’s the one…
Chair Lew: Can I…
Mr. Cusenbery: Sorry.
Chair Lew: Can I ask a question? Is the – so the wall between the arcade and the parking spaces or the
parking isle?
Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah?
Chair Lew: Is that a solid shear wall or can that be semi-permeable or semi-open – partially open or it
could be screen – yeah, it could be a screen wall.
Mr. Cusenbery: I apologize that I can’t go over there, I – my – I had a failure on my laptop so I’m doing
my back up the system but anyway, this is a view. The answer to your question is on that wall, I do not
believe there’s – certainly not the whole thing does not have to be shear wall. I mean that would be the
safe answer but portions of it maybe or maybe not but certainly not the whole thing. What we’re showing
– there’s a lot of flexibility on what this can become. This visualization is based on the idea of glass
mosaic with some kind of photorealistic immersive environment. It does not necessarily become that –
should this be selected as one of the public art sites, we put it out there as an opportunity but no, there’s
a flexibility on how that can have developed and how that can be elaborated and the openness or
closedness of it can vary.
Chair Lew: Thank you. Ok and then on the community room?
Mr. Cusenbery: The community room, the thought on that – on the windows, the way that the – I’m
going to – position yourself in the community room looking towards – like you just walked into the lobby
and what you have in the community room is to your left, which is the plaza side, there’s a header that
where the windows only go up to, I think it’s 10-feet. Basically, the idea is that it’s playing up the retail
datum of storefronts. Then in that same community room, in front of you, that lower area is opaque but
above it is a high window and that high window is on both – you can see it there in the picture of the
lobby on the right. The high window is on the entrance side and on the far end so that you have light
coming in from various sides in that space but that’s not a constraint. That is fixed, that is a design
decision that has flexibility. I think this view shows it a little bit better. You can see the high windows to
the left above the canopy over the entries to the parking structure. Those are high windows into that
same public – that same multi-purpose room actually – multi-purpose room. There you can see the kind
of retail datum of those windows.
Chair Lew: Right and then does the – the access to the multi-purpose room has to be…
Mr. Cusenbery: Is through the lobby.
Chair Lew: … through the lobby. (crosstalk) for security wise, does…
Mr. Cusenbery: Correct.
Chair Lew: … it does not make sense to have it – is it not possible to have doors to the plaza?
Mr. Cusenbery: The way that it’s – we actually entertaining doors to the plaza so yes, that’s actually a
hope but we have to make sure that it’s acceptable for all parties. So, we put that out there as a
possibility and we’re going to discuss that further. The idea those is that the access to that multi-purpose
room can happen after hours and the way security works is you have access to the bathroom, access to
2.d
Packet Pg. 59
City of Palo Alto Page 21
the lobby and access to that room so you could have community meetings there that don’t need special
escorts to use it.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you.
Mr. Cusenbery: That was the second one and then the third one was the…
Chair Lew: The alley – the Jacaranda Alley frontage with the wall and the courtyard and the benches?
Mr. Cusenbery: In that case, the wall is positioned to – for a couple of drivers. One of the drivers is
providing the vehicles security distance so that you can’t approach the vehicles – approach the building in
a vehicle within a certain dimension. So, in that case, on the plaza side it’s all done with furnishings – site
furnishings but on the Jacaranda side, it doesn't with a wall. The wall is in part – it serves several
functions, one is that garden area is intended to be a visual amenity for the offices that are on the
inboard side. Customarily if you look at police stations, you’ll see that the window heads on the ground
floor are usually very high and it always feels very off-putting at street level; if you look at urban police
stations in particular. The idea here is that you actually – for the insides you actually have generous
windows onto this yard and then the wall is outboard so that there’s still visual security. Then on the
operations yard, the intent is to try to push the wall too as close to the property line as possible. Again,
distance (inaudible) to pedestrians walking on that side from the police standpoint and also maximizing
the space available on the operations yard. So, we looked at various configurations but in operational
reality is you don’t want to incentive people to hang out right at the edge there where it’s difficult to
monitor.
Chair Lew: Then you do have benches.
Mr. Cusenbery: We’re trying to – it’s about – we’re trying to be responsive to the multiple comments
(inaudible) (crosstalk)…
Chair Lew: You’re trying to break up the long wall.
Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, we do appreciate the comments that we received from the Board here as well but
there are people who work in those areas and providing some amenities.
Chair Lew: Then my last question was just on the Park Boulevard and that front – in that setback.
Mr. Cusenbery: That is preserved primarily as a passive zone – passive seating zone. There’s raised –
again, there’s a parking structure under it so all the planters are raised, there are benches integrated
with it and in terms of the width – yeah, it does have the double – there’s flexibility on the width. So,
should it be determined that it’s not providing enough side by side walking area, we can certainly adjust
that. Those – that – those planting areas can become narrower and there’s no constraint that requires it
to be that way. The operational constraint doesn’t start till white area where we actually have a program.
Chair Lew: Thank you so I think I am in agreement with the – generally with the Board’s comments and I
guess I would say – well, we’ll see what happens we get to the next hearing but I guess the question
could be is – yeah, Wynne?
Board Member Furth: Kyu, does –I understand that these projects are coming to us together. The
phasing of construction is parking lot – parking structure first and then the next one, right? So, that we
don’t basically touch that parking – that second parking lot until new parking available. So, that makes
me feel a slightly different sense of urgency about the two buildings. I’m – not that everybody wouldn’t
have like them 10-years ago. If we’re closer to thinking that we understand what garage we could
approve would look like, is it helpful to focus our comments on that and see if we can give any clear
direction? I mean do we have consensus on what should happen or enough to give direction as to what
should happen on Ash Street and what – do we have consensus?
2.d
Packet Pg. 60
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Chair Lew: Why don’t we – ok, well why don’t we work on that and so why don’t we work on the garage
first and I think there have been a number of comments about the arcade, as well as the wall. So, why
don’t we try to come to a consensus on the recommendation for those two areas? Could we – well on
the wall, I think you were proposing etched concrete, which I’ve never seen before. I’ve seen architects
propose it before but I’ve never seen it in person. I was wondering if there are examples.
Mr. Cusenbery: There are examples and in fact, we have some examples which may not be in your
packet but we do have an example with a photo-realistic etching and that you – at some angles you
actually don’t see it and then from other angles, it really telegraphs. I will put a disclaimer in, we’ve
shown a graphic and we have identified it as a potential public art site. So, I think what I have to say is
that what happens to that wall is in part assuming that it maybe be selected as a public art site and then
will be in the realm of the artist. We would want to leave that – some of that flexibility for that so I’m
answering you only provisionally because some of the discussion was that well, the wall could be the art
site but then there’s the reentry corner. Maybe the reentry corner has something within and that
becomes an art site so this is the first stake in the ground but I think what evolves with the public art
component could inform it significantly. If we chose – sorry, just a -- we chose this end of the site as a
public art site because it’s visibility from the plaza and because there were concerns voice previously
about the narrow Sherman side.
Chair Lew: Ok, let’s bring it back the Board. On the wall, I think there have been a number of comments.
What do you think is the best recommendation?
Board Member Gooyer: I was going to say that I guess maybe that’s – I have a different opinion about
some of this and that is that I don’t want to sit there and design it. That’s not our job here and we’ve
given it some thought that it needs to be softened or whatever but – I know that – see I guess it’s one of
these things that the applicant wants us to give him as specific comments and everything else. Then if it
turns out that they do it slightly different to what we want, they come back and say yeah, but you guys
told me to do it this way. That’s one of the things I don’t like about that and now we’re being told we’re
going to tell them exactly how it needs to be designed.
Chair Lew: No, it’s a – just on the – the Board’s recommendation.
Board Member Gooyer: I think most of us have already done that. We’ve said that the thing needs to be
softer and all the other things. Now we’re talking – like going into specific individual items and telling him
how it needs to be done.
Chair Lew: No, I’m not saying that.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok.
Chair Lew: If the Board is in agreement that it should be softer, I think that’s fine.
Mr. Cusenbery: One the comments, just if I might, that I did hear that will be helpful to elaborate on is
the request for more openness and that is one of those items that it’s a direct contradiction to the
operational imperative of maximum…
Board Member Gooyer: That’s fine, we understand that. I mean there are certain criteria that you need
and that’s very logical and I understand that. I don’t think any of us have mentioned that. I think you
were the one that mentioned about the openness but it – more than the rest of us. It’s just that that’s a
very severe looking element. It – something could be a whole lot softer and still be closed…
Mr. Lait: Chair?
Board Member Gooyer: … of solid.
2.d
Packet Pg. 61
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Mr. Cusenbery: Then I misheard, I though openness was…
Mr. Lait: I’m wondering if it might be appropriate to take a 5-minute break just to give the applicant team
an opportunity to sort of regroup after hearing the comments and think about asking the Board for areas
of specific clarification or area – I mean clearly there is going to be some work that needs to be done but
it’s going to be hard to do in on the fly right now. So, you can just take a little break and give people just
a chance to regroup, I think that might be helpful.
Chair Lew: Ok, how long? Ten minutes or fifteen minutes?
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Mr. Lait: Ten minutes.
Chair Lew: So, it is – I have 10:53 so we’ll say 11 after – five after 11 or so. Ok, we’ll take a break.
[Board took a short break]
Chair Lew: Reconvene and how do we want to start? Did you guys – do you have something…
Mr. Cusenbery: There’s a couple thought and we’re formulating on the fly so I’ll do my best here. I
thought it would be helpful for us to make a couple clarifications or just elaborate on a couple of minor
points for – whether it’s useful or not. Then I want to – we would like to ask a couple of fundamental
questions as to what level these comments exist at so let me just start with the clarifications. Forgive me,
we’re working on the fly but there’s been a lot of discussion about the – enlarging the size of the plaza
and right now, I just to reinforce that this is a very, very small site for the scale of a Public Safety
Building. That is, it’s approximately 1 ½-acre site and if you go any communities in this area on the
peninsula or anywhere and they usually start at least an acre or larger. They do all have operational
yards outside them and so the building, in a way, barely fits. The building has been reduced in size over
the periods of years from 56,000-square feet to about 48,000-square feet but at this point, if we were,
for instance, shift the building, we’d eliminate the operational yard. That is a program and scope
reduction and operational impact so I just want to say that as a clarification. Another clarification is the
plaza itself, we just paced it off so it’s not extremely accurate but basically the plaza is roughly the width
of this room. So, from curb to building, this is the size of the plaza so that’s a second clarification. The –
another clarification I want to reiterate that though we rendered it with the police vehicle, that Birch
Street ramp is, in fact, Staff parking so out bad. That was purely for dramatic effect but not to good
result. I guess what I would do then is we’re going to ask for – if we could reach closer on a couple
things on the garage but I think what would also be helpful is – I completely agree with Board Member
Gooyer’s opinion that it’s not your job to give us design ideas and opinions. We’re – I wanted to clarify
that we’re not looking for that at all but there – the comments tended to fall – can be maybe simplified
into two categories of comments. One category of comment are ones that have a significant impact on
the operations to configurations of the building, such as moving the building back and getting rid of the
operational yard. Now we have a series of vehicles – fleet of vehicles that have nowhere to put them or
for instance, there was a discussion of breaking it up and making it curvier or changing the massing in
significant ways. Well, the volume of the building is the derivative of a lot of complex operational
interaction. So, those types of changes, what I would call – let’s call it for lack of a better term, kind of
structural changes, definitely have operational – significant operational impacts so that would be one
category of change. Another category of change though is one of treatment, again for lack of a better
word, where I think I put softer in that category or friendlier or different scale. Where it’s not attacking or
dismantling the core organizational structure but it’s looking at the resulting feel. For instance, this
extruded box shape is really – and the treatment of it is derivative of operations but for instance,
treatment might be, for instance, I think part of what is – I’m speculating that part of what might be –
people may be experiencing is that this is a truly fortressed building. It is ballistic resistant and it is
screening views by design, by intent and that in and of itself has some connotations with it. However,
treatment – if the material isn’t concrete but it’s unit bricks, right and it’s a friendlier unit material or if it
2.d
Packet Pg. 62
City of Palo Alto Page 24
is more glass, which is tricky because of ballistics but none the less if there was more glass. Things like
that would-be treatment that aren’t structural. So, I guess what I’m – sorry, that was a little bit long
winded but the idea is that it would be helpful to know if your comments are specifically saying yes, we
have to structurally change this or it’s just a matter of softening and treating it differently. Oh yeah, so
then – thank you. Then there are just a few things if we could receive specific feedback on relative to the
garage because that appears to be the easier one. It’s arcades, do we provide them as a pedestrian
amenity and a mitigation of the scale and mass and volume with a garage, yes or no, we see them as a
hazard and would like them removed? So, that would be the arcade question. The wall question I’ll leave
that in your category but with some direction – not design direction but attitudinal direction on the large
wall. Again, in the context of vulnerability for the Public Safety Building and feedback on that. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you. I think that was well said. Let’s bring it back to the Board and I think I will
ask Board Member Baltay if you want to make a recommendation overall for the project?
Board Member Baltay: Let me address my fellow Board Members here. What’s been going through my
head over this break is that we ought to just say no to the design of the police station right now and
send this back so that everybody, Staff and Council and police really hear that it’s both items, the
structural and the finishes are not close. They are not going in the right direction. We feel we gave you
similar feedback at the first hearing. What we get back is a design that goes grossly in the wrong
direction. We get a lot of words from you, from the Staff, from the police that camouflage and twist what
our intent was and I have no confidence that this is going to do anything but the same thing next time
around. You’ll spend another $30,000 bucks on design work, another beautiful package, another huge
public hearing to hear the same thing again. I think the design is in the wrong direction and you heard
that from every one of us. I don’t know how to be more clear and what’s worked for us in the past is just
to say no. So, the question to Staff is can we separate this into two things and continue the garage. We
can figure that out and next time around we can get it through and just say no to the fire – to the police
building as it’s designed.
Mr. Lait: I think at this point we’re not a decision-making mode either in favor or against. We haven’t
agendize it in that manner and it’s been I think clear that there is going to become kind of continuation. I
think your comments can certainly be expressed and when it returns to the Board the next time, we can
probably agendize it for an action, if that where the Board interest.
Board Member Baltay: Can the project be split into two?
Mr. Lait: They are two different projects and they are two different addresses. We’re processing them
concurrently because of their relationship to each other and the neighborhood and also, for the purposes
of the environmental analysis.
Board Member Gooyer: Let me get – piggyback a little bit of what Peter said, is that I understand your
comment about there’s no action to be taken here but I agree that if we go along the same line or even
slightly along the same line for the police station as we’re doing now, I agree completely it’s going in the
wrong direction. So, even though we’re not taking an action, I think we could be very blunt and say this
is not the direction you’re going and it needs to change. Now that’s not a yes or no type situation but I
think we need to be very bluntly – I don’t know about the rest of the – but at least the two of us agree
that this is not the right direction. If it comes back like this – I’ve been on Boards long enough that if
you’re not very firm about saying we do not like this, architects having been on both sides of the podium
so to speak will say oh, well it wasn’t too bad. Let me just tweak it a little bit and we’ll keep going. I want
to get that, at least in my opinion, that’s not the right direction and I want to be very blunt about that
like Peter was. That even though you say we’re not doing any decision making here but I can guarantee
if it keeps going in this direction, I’ll vote against it. So, why waste the time and effort?
Chair Lew: I have a question for both of you, is that do you think the site is appropriate for a Public
Safety Building? Given all the constraints that you’ve heard about like the two driveways and…
2.d
Packet Pg. 63
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Board Member Baltay: Well, sure, what I see, and I’m very glad the Police Department is here, is that
there needs to be a little more compromise. What happens – I’m an architect, practicing, and what
happens is between the architect and the client, the architect wants to meet the client’s requirements.
What I think, with all respect, the police are missing is that this is a dense urban environment and you’re
putting some new beautiful, expensive police building in a very important downtown, urban retail area. I
think there needs to be more compromise on the side of the police as to what really is a realistic
accomplishment. For example, this concrete wall, what I heard the architect say is that it needs to be
solid concrete to prevent an active shooter situation from somebody up there shooting at the police
building and I say to you that that’s not a realistic target to give the architect and the design team. When
you do that, you set the standard – you set the bar so high that in the end, it’s not going to happen.
You’re going to go through this Palo Alto process and you’re not going to get the building built, which is
what we’ve been going through for years. Really there needs to be more of a sense of understanding of
what we mean by civic, understanding what we mean by a plaza and understanding what we mean by
making it not scary. All while trying to do your responsibilities of being civic stewards of our security,
which we all want as well but in this location, it’s going to be taken a little more compromise and I don’t
think I’m hearing that from you quite the way it needs to be -- to succeed. So, yes, to answer Alex’s
question, I think it can be done but it’s going to be a painful process unless you start to really listen. Not
just the architect, the architect is getting dragged through all of this to a large degree because they are
trying to meet the program.
Board Member Gooyer: Let me ask something then and this is probably going to go against everything
that everybody is saying, at least from what I’m hearing. What if we reduce the size of the plaza? I mean
the criteria of this is to build a police station, not a plaza. I know it would be nice to have a plaza there
but if the Police Department needs additional square footage for some reason to make the building a lot
more amenable and attractive for the next 50-years, I’m willing to give up part of the plaza so they can
get some ins and outs in the building, rather than a big concrete block. Your comment about I need
certain square footage and we both know a shoe box is the easiest thing to design to put as much
functional square footage in it as possible.
Mr. Cusenbery: I might if I could just elaborate on that in relative to Board Member Baltay’s comment
about compromise? The plaza as it is right now actually represents a compromise on the part of the
Police Department because from a security and safety standpoint, the preference is that you don’t want
invite mingling but I think it’s been clear, double lay along, that there’s a possibility of providing an
amenity. So, that was an early compromise of the Police Department and they said ok, well let’s be
careful about how we stage it because we don’t want people lingering around the building but we end up
with a nice civic amenity. So, to your point yes, eliminating the plaza would be consistent with
operational desires and wouldn’t require a compromise on the Police Department (inaudible) and
acknowledge the fact that it is urban and in fact…
Board Member Gooyer: I agree and the reality of it is, it – a plaza would be nice but we’re building a
police station, not a plaza that also happens to have a police station next to it.
Vice Chair Kim: If I could clarify my previous comments about the plaza size. I just meant that the other
all size could change. Maybe it does grow, maybe it does shrink but right now, I think the plaza is trying
to be forced with all these complicated angles but the reality of it is, is it’s just a rectangular plaza with a
rectangular three-story concrete building front. I think something there has to change.
Board Member Gooyer: So, the idea being if it was a nicer, smaller plaza you’d be just as happy with it
than a larger, sort of mundane one.
Vice Chair Kim: As long as the relationship with – from the plaza to the building is much more amenable
than it is right now and I understand that there’s a program to the building but I just don’t understand
why the building has to be so flat. I mean is there a way to cantilever the second or third floor? Is there
2.d
Packet Pg. 64
City of Palo Alto Page 26
any other ins and outs that can be accomplished rather than -- I mean the only thing on the front of this
building is this portal and it doesn’t really even lead into the building, you have to turn.
Board Member Baltay: The Park Avenue side is only one-story and I mean that could be bigger to take
some of the pressure off as well. There are other things you can do.
Board Member Furth: If part of the program is to repel Palo Alton’s so that they don’t linger around the
building, I don’t think I’m ever going to be approving that aspect of the design. That doesn’t seem to me
to be consistent with our Police Department’s notion of their job and they're having fit into our
community or our understanding of what they do? I mean they need to be safe, they need secure
spaces, they need to be able to cope during fire and flood and famine and rising sea levels. I hope the
sea level is good guys. They need to be able to deal with a lot of things but there must be a way to
design a building that engages and encourages people to come it to it who do not have malevolent
intent, while at the same time providing security against those who do.
Board Member Gooyer: I think that’s one of the reasons that we’ve talked about. That’s why you hire an
architect as someone who has the training to be able to put a lot of maybe mundane functions in an
attractive or at least inviting envelope.
Board Member Furth: Exactly and when you all talk about moving the – actually moving the building in
and out. I mean there was this – I had a bunch of – a bunch of my notes are what does this mean, like
dynamic massing? I kept looking for the dynamic massing and I could not figure out where the dynamic
massing was or what it meant. Yes, buildings that go in and out are more engaging. Yes, a lot of our
most successful building – you know we were looking at our parking structure across from our Birge Clark
Post Office and one of the things that really struck me is that those – that building and the Wells Fargo
building across the street both managed to – in the case of the Wells Fargo building in particular, be
quite secure and yet have limited spaces that really invite you in with cuts in the building and second
floor archways or whatever they are – trellises. Perhaps we should – perhaps it’s helpful not to think of
this as a plaza. Perhaps it’s the front yard but it needs to be a front yard where I can sit down and chat
with somebody if I run into them; in my view. I think your point about would a child be afraid of this
building or to walk into it, that’s an important test. I’m confident that you can design an entry that will
satisfy the department’s needs and also engage small children. I really don’t think that’s impossible and
I’ve been in such places. I also imagine that it can be done on this site and I don’t think now is the time
to talk about materials and what not but I was not kidding about where does the public find a restroom
and I think the answer is in this building, right? Twenty-four hours a day, right? So, signage is going to
matter so that people know that. Anyway, that’s enough for me.
Board Member Baltay: My comment earlier about just saying no to this is re-inflected in me by Robert’s
questioning of one of the basic programming aspects of this plaza. That’s for us at the Architectural
Board to decide if there’s a plaza in front of the new police station. That needs to come from the powers
that are really driving this project and yet, it’s a very good question. Maybe we’re being too ambitious
asking for a plaza and for a modern Public Security Building on a 1 ½- acre site but again, that speaks to
the Board Members on needing to send this back to the drawing board.
Mr. Cusenbery: If I could?
Board Member Baltay: It’s just not – the piece is not there perhaps.
Board Member Furth: I’m not prepared to send it back to the drawing board until we put together
findings of why it doesn’t – negative findings, essentially why it doesn’t make a finding. I’m not prepared
to do it today.
Board Member Gooyer: Well yeah, but we’re not at that situation of an up or down so do we need to
have findings? We’re giving guidance right now. Maybe the guidance goes back to the drawing board
2.d
Packet Pg. 65
City of Palo Alto Page 27
because it’s not going in the right direction. We’re not looking for an up or down, we were just told that
so we don’t need findings to make a judgment call.
Board Member Furth: You don’t need findings to make a recommendation but if we propose to turn it
down, then I think we do.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok, but I think what we’re telling them that if they keep going the way they are
now, then there will probably be findings that turn it down so let’s not go there. That’s not doing any
favor to anybody.
Ms. Lum: Chair Lew?
Chair Lew: Yes?
Ms. Lum: May I make a quick comment?
Chair Lew: Yes, please.
Ms. Lum: Patty Lum again. So, I appreciate all of your comments and we certainly take them to heart. I
just wanted to address the issue of compromise. I think we have compromise throughout this program
and what happens all along is that this is the site we were left with and our goal is to make it work.
Several of you have said that you think it can work, which is great but along this process with the huge
need in the community for parking. For better or for worse, the two projects where married and I think
we have to remember that the number one infrastructure project here is the Public Safety Building. I
think it’s probably -- the parking structure, we can get there and are almost there from the comments I
hear. I believe that in June I didn’t hear as strong of comments from all of you and maybe that’s our fault
that we didn’t take it the right direction but we certainly are hearing that now. So, I would encourage you
not to just kill the project but perhaps we can focus on the garage and then come back to you with a
different direction. Just one comment real quickly and Mallory is probably going to get mad me but when
I first saw the rendering of the Staff underground, I – I’m a police officer and I said oh, we need to
soften that. So, we are with you but we just didn’t have all of the time – we’re on a tight timeline here
and we want to keep it moving and it’s time and money and everything else for the City and the need for
this building. So, I encourage you to please, please, just – we are asking for guidance and we are
definitely hearing you but thank you.
Board Member Gooyer: The other way to look at it -- I understand and that’s not unrealistic to say we
need that but we also are realistic to know that this is a civic building and it’s going to be there for 50-
years or 75-years. So, you also want to get it pretty close to right the first time, even if it takes a little
longer so 5-years from now, people won’t go oh, geez they gave it a shot but it didn’t really work out.
That’s why I said -- let’s go back then, are you the ones that wanted – requested the plaza? By you
meaning the Police Department.
Ms. Lum: Sure, I don’t know that it was a specific request. We probably thought it was expected of us to
have a building – a civic building with this amount of money in it without a plaza would be – we could go
the Berkeley style. There really is…
Board Member Gooyer: Well so what you’re thinking – so, I don’t mean to put words in your mouth but
what you were thinking as a Police Department saying the powers that be at City Hall would like
something like that. Then maybe the compromise is that City Hall has to also compromise and say look,
we need a fully functioning Police Department that’s going to be there for 75-years and we can’t have as
big of plaza we have. We need an extra, I don’t know, 1,000-square feet to dedicated it too. You made
the comment that you’ve been compromising and I get the feeling that you think all the compromising
has been on your end, yours meaning the Police Department end. That may be the case, I don’t know. I
wasn’t involved in all of that but you know compromise means everybody gets some and loses some. So,
it’s like I understand you wanting to do the right thing for the community but I – to me, doing the right
2.d
Packet Pg. 66
City of Palo Alto Page 28
thing for the community is having a well-functioning Police Department, not the size of the plaza up
front.
Ms. Lum: I think the only component – there is a component of the plaza that we like, for sure. We want
to entertain the community, we want to have a community multi-purpose room open up onto a plaza,
there are good parts of that so I think we need to reevaluate and I completely understand where you’re
coming from. We certainly are not the only ones that have compromised, everyone in this process has
compromised.
Board Member Gooyer: I mean that – but I’m just saying that maybe there are something that you
haven’t looked at or that you felt we couldn’t compromise on, whether that’s plus or minus. That the
multipurpose room becomes literally multipurpose where it serves your functions eighty-five percent of
the time and is a communal room for fifteen percent of the time; that sort of thing. Whereas other than
leaving it as a big empty Boardroom that almost never gets used or occasionally at night when a
community group comes in, you know that sort of thing.
Chair Lew: So…
Ms. Cusenbery: I have a couple – Chairmen?
Chair Lew: Sure.
Ms. Cusenbery: I have a couple of follow up questions that are just hyper-specific for the (inaudible) to
try to focus the conversation a little bit. At the last presentation, we presented the background on the
massing of the building. We show a number of perspectives and during the predesign phase we had
creates a two-story building that was spread out over the site or a three-story building that was more
compact. The reason we said was purely operational and also partly because we felt – in fact, the
massing of the three-story piece would be less conspicuous and it was my understanding that there was
agreement from this Board that in fact the three-story massing and the tucked back and setbacks and
the general configuration of the massing was approvable. Now, I’m not talking about the treatment, I’m
talking about the massing. That’s the dialog that I recall from the last one and so if that is a mistake in
understanding, that would be good to address specifically.
Board Member Gooyer: I don’t think so. I don’t think anybody has a problem with a three-story aspect of
it.
Ms. Cusenbery: Ok, thank you.
Board Member Gooyer: I mean am I – that’s not – let’s face it, some of the preliminary sketches you –
was – you said we’re just throwing some ideas out just so that – we also didn’t want to get to specific
about I like this, I don’t like this, when it was very early on. I think the massing part of it we agree that it
makes more sense. I mean I’ve always been a fan of you make the building smaller and higher and
you’ve got more of a footprint around to do things with.
Ms. Cusenbery: Correct.
Chair Lew: Ok, any other – Wynne.
Board Member Furth: I agree with Robert. I don’t think that anybody thinks that a two-story solution is
better than a three-story. We keep talking about how expensive this land is and that means we want
underground parking and a three-story building that can move in and out and invite people in and
provide light and air and private spaces for the people working in them. It does seem to me – I don’t
think we indicated that this particular building would be acceptable to us in this particular kind of volume.
It also seems to me that the work that we think needs to be done isn’t simply a matter of changing the
color of the plaster or growing ivy over it. That it involves more rethinking than that and I think probably
2.d
Packet Pg. 67
City of Palo Alto Page 29
not that far away that there is some space to move back and forth when you think about the design
facing Birch. The fact that there’s a community room that would be accessible from a plaza to me seems
to be an enormous upside. We have a huge shortage of space for people to meet and for non-profits to
meet. I’m not worried about it not being used, particularly now that it will have parking, and that it’s in
the south part of town which is not an enough more serious deficit than other parts of town. It still does
seem to me that the critical path is to get the EIR completed, we haven’t even read it and we don’t know
what it says so that’s working in the dark to a certain extent, and to try to get the design for the garage
in a place where we can make the appropriate findings. That does not need to delay the beginning or
completion of construction for the Public Safety Building. That there is time to do what we think is
needed to be done without delaying occupancy.
Chair Lew: Yes, Jonathan?
Mr. Lait: I was going to try to get us to the next part which I think your heading too.
Chair Lew: Yes, and I just wanted to add one thing, just in general principles of design. I mean the way
that I’ve been taught is that the first say like 5 to 10-feet is the architecture of the building. You have
been putting some of that in the project so like you have the portal and the staircase on the corner and
you have some recesses. I think what I am hearing from the Board is that those aren’t working so I
would say work on that first 10-feet of what you see. It may very well be that everything else in the
(inaudible) is fine. It may be that you need more of those spaces and maybe the plaza gets smaller to do
that. Then I would also say that in the back of my mind I was at – I’ve been actually wondering is this all
just proportions? You know is the cornice to high on the building and would it be better at 30-feet instead
of 50-feet? I haven’t really come to a conclusion if that or if there’s something wrong with the
organization internally of the building but I think generally we’re trying to downscale the buildings and so
elements that are closer to what’s already – closer to the existing buildings on California Avenue I thin
would help. I think that shows in the some of the perspectives where you have the two big 50-foot
things, they sort of match the Court House but they are – I think they are overwhelming the buildings
and you’ve been trying to do things like putting the photovoltaics on the garage. You’re trying to break
the scale down and I do want to encourage you to do that kind of move. I think that is working in the
right direction. So, let’s move on and I think our – the recommendation was just to continue it and we’ll
let them debate it and we’ll see it again. As again, I just remind you that the recommendation was to
continue it next month but we’re putting it off beyond that because of the environmental review is taking
longer. Yes?
Board Member Furth: I’m sorry, (inaudible) your earlier comment that now is the time to speak and not
later. I do agree with those of you who have commented on – I think Robert in particular, on the colors.
If I’m looking at terracotta, I expect terracotta as in creams and soft – things that look good with vines
and that neighborhood is full of those colors. This, to me, seems much to black, white and international
orange. I mean I realize that is not international orange but black, white and terracotta.
Chair Lew: Ok.
Mr. Lait: Chair?
Board Member Furth: So, I’d be looking for a different…
Chair Lew: Yes?
Board Member Furth: … pallet.
Mr. Lait: I understand the applicant team would also just want to get some clarifying guidance on the
arcade alongside the garage.
Chair Lew: Aw, yes, ok.
2.d
Packet Pg. 68
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Board Member Baltay: I think you should get rid of the arcade.
Board Member Gooyer: I think if they want more parking, yeah, I do too; emphasize the parking. It’s a
parking garage.
Chair Lew: Any other comments on the arcade?
Board Member Furth: I think its space 11-feet high and 20-feet deep, is that what it is? Not attractive for
anybody. I would like to see the building moved out, leaving enough space for a generous sidewalk with
some attractive landscaping to my…
Mr. Cusenbery: Sorry, I just…
Board Member Furth: …(inaudible).
Mr. Cusenbery: …want to say that I – just from our experience that those are mutually exclusive
currently. That the – removing the arcade will just give us the City sidewalk because the…
Board Member Furth: How many feet in that particular place?
Mr. Cusenbery: I believe it’s 8-feet and that includes where the trees are planted. I…
Board Member Furth: No, it’s on the street.
Mr. Cusenbery: …hope I have that right but they – that includes where the street tree so the walkway is
about 5-feet clear.
Board Member Furth: What do you all think?
Chair Lew: Well, so on the arcade – you know like the famous arcades in Europe, the arcade is the
sidewalk. There isn’t a sidewalk beyond the arcade and they are often 20-feet wide and maybe even 20-
feet high or more; like things like [phonetics] [Roota vel lee] or [Belonia] or [Burn] and there are
countless examples of that. I was recently at the small scale one in Santa Fe and it was all – I think it’s
all lined with Native American selling jewelry and it’s great. I guess the – my question here is what -- I
mean say you have art and all of that but actually happens there? If it’s only a passageway then I think
it’s too big and I think Wynne was sort of hinting that maybe it’s planting there in part of it and I think
that could work. I would say Ash Street is narrow right, the sidewalk is narrow and the street is narrow
as well or maybe not this particular block. I think it’s some of the other blocks further down. On adding
parking there, I actually have reservations about parking on the first floor of garages. There have been
problems in – like Santana Row and also there’s a garage in downtown San Jose near the library where
they actually ended up removing parking spaces because it was causing too much backup. I think there
have been a couple Board Members who were asking for maybe consideration of a second garage
entrance so maybe that plays into those as well. Then I think I do want to acknowledge that we do have
in recessed areas – even here in downtown we do have homeless people who will use those at night so
that is a concern as well. I think it’s still better to have – I don’t know, my take on it would be it would be
better to have it than to have parking there. That’s my take so Kyu?
Vice Chair Kim: I mean is there a possibility to do like two or three parallels spots and maybe decrease
the depth of the arcade? I think it’s really the proportions of it that disturb me more than anything else.
Board Member Gooyer: Maybe we just leave it at this, it can be redesigned and if that means a couple
parking spaces and some modification like a wider sidewalk and that sort of thing.
2.d
Packet Pg. 69
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Chair Lew: Then the other – I mean then consider if it’s something more open – if it can be more open
than the solid concrete wall. Again, that’s going to depend on the artwork as well and that – I mean a
great piece of artwork would go a long way in that space. Where there any other design issues that you
wanted the Board to comment on?
Mr. Cusenbery: I believe we have what we can work with right now. I’ll look to my team, anybody – ok,
we’re good. Thank you.
Vice Chair Kim: Can I say a closing comment? While this was a beautiful package, I think we really need
to be able to see the floor plans and more of the surrounding site on some of these floor plans and a
little bit larger, especially when we are given the half size. I know that one of the Board Members
received the full size and also some of the labeling on the floor plans was reversed on the top and
bottom so just keep an eye on that.
Mr. Cusenbery: Noted.
Chair Lew: Well, this was quite an item. We are at 11:40 and I think we were…
MOTION
Board Member Baltay: Alex, can I make a motion that we continue this project…
Chair Lew: Oh, yes.
Board Member Baltay: … to a date uncertain.
Chair Lew: Do we have a second?
Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second.
Chair Lew: All in favor? Opposed? None.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0
2.d
Packet Pg. 70
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. June 26,2018
1
Palo Alto Public Safety Building -- ARB Formal Review
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Palo Alto Public Safety Building (PSB) and California Avenue Garage project occupies two city
blocks at the intersection of Sherman Avenue and Birch Street, and represents Palo Alto’s largest
investment in municipal infrastructure since the construction of City Hall. During the initial study
session in June of 2017, the ARB reviewed three uniquely different approaches to building this
new civic complex. In summary review, these previous schemes were: Screening/Greening, which
proposed to veil public safety building and public parking garage in a naturalized setting to
reduce their visual presence and secure vulnerable openings; Dynamic Massing, which proposed
to break down building massing by modulating the building volumes to make the two-block
project appear smaller, more intimate and visually dramatic; and, Simple Civic, which proposed a
dignified and semi-formal visual presence to create a confident, approachable and community-
scaled civic image for Public Safety. The ARB had an opportunity to offer input about the design
opportunities inherent in each concept and provide direction to the design team on how best to
further refine the design as the project progresses; a summary of all comments and
comprehensive responses are included in the Comments & Responses Table in the body of the
submittal. During this same time frame, the three options were also presented to the building’s
user groups, and some community representatives. Overall comments were documented and
addressed. The current proposal has emerged from this process.
00 OVERVIEW
The Public Safety Building (PSB) at 250 Sherman Ave, is located on the City’s existing surface
Parking Lot C6. The PSB is approximately a 46,000 square-foot, three-story police station and
fire/police administration building. The PSB includes two full-block subterranean floors of police
parking and operations, and shares its parcel with smaller operational accessory buildings, a
secure operational yard, and a public plaza. The PSB has generous setbacks from its property
lines, a standoff perimeter that offers both security and community design benefits. The PSB is a
secure, essential services facility that will be designed to support and protect the critical
operations that occur inside. The design of the PSB requires the careful balancing of transparency
and solidity.
As a law enforcement and emergency response building, there are a series of specialized building
and site design accommodations that design of the PSB is required to meet. No unscreened
vehicle may come within 20’-0” of the building, requiring a security setback that is enforced with
perimeter vehicle barriers. The subterranean parking for Patrol vehicles must have two separate
vehicular exits onto two unique streets in the event that one street is obstructed in some way
(flooding, protest, fire, or other obstructing hazard). Site design should follow CPTED (Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design) best practices. Windows and openings are to be
protected from line-of-sight vulnerabilities, resulting in careful placement and type of windows,
types of visual screening, quantity of openings. Outdoor programmatic areas must be secured
2.e
Packet Pg. 71
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. June 26,2018
2
and screened from view to protect critical operations. The project will include facility resiliency,
redundancy and hardening strategies which when deployed will enable the PSB to remain
operational after a major disaster.
The Parking Garage (Garage) at 350 Sherman Ave, was previously approved by the ARB and is
currently under building permit review. The new garage will be located on the City’s existing
surface Parking Lot C7. The parking garage is a four-story above grade and two-story below
grade, 636 stall public parking structure serving the parking needs of the California Avenue
business district. The parking structure fills its site to nearly the property lines and utilizes
strategies such as a cascading exterior grand staircase and landscaped setback (on Birch Street),
and a pedestrian lobby at Birch Street to provide scale-mitigating site amenities. The height of
the California Avenue Garage will be approximately 49'-0" above sidewalk level to top of roof-
mounted photovoltaic panels. As a public-serving amenity, the garage’s key design imperatives
include ease of wayfinding, generosity toward the pedestrian environment, and a perimeter skin
that offers an appropriate visual character when viewed by its neighbors.
01 GENERAL CONCEPTS
The proposed design creates a distinctive civic identity through a series of prominent civic
markers nested within an understated backdrop of rich landscaping and informal visual textures.
The overall building volumes are de-emphasized, receding in deference to the smaller-scale,
dynamic and colorful civic points-of-contact. Each colorful accent highlights an archetypal urban
moment—entry, arcade, plaza, gateway, grand staircase—reinforcing and elevating civic
instances like arrival, orientation, entry, protection, repose and connection with nature. The
project’s visual palette draws upon Palo Alto precedents: the terra cotta and off-white materials
of the City’s historic buildings coupled with the formal invention of its modernist landscape past,
all reworked and updated to address contemporary urban design priorities.
The PSB and Parking Garage designs embrace the unique qualities of the California Avenue
district. This neighborhood’s defining characteristics include: an eclectic mix of scales, materials,
uses and styles; significant local investment in quality of design and materials; sensitivity to the
pedestrian public realm; and, a “gateway” quality along Birch Street frontage based on existing
patterns of pedestrian and vehicular circulation. and embody these characteristics. The PSB and
Garage find expression for each of these qualities. The new buildings feature a mixture of scales,
from multi-block gestures to small-scale and intimate points-of-contact. The materials palette is
based on high-quality local historic precedents—terra cotta, finely detailed concrete. The public
realm is reinforced through civic amenities such as arcades, a grand staircase, and an enveloping
plaza environment, even overlapping into the PSB entry lobby and multi-purpose room. The PSB
and garage designs emerge from and contributes to the uniqueness of the California Avenue
Business district.
2.e
Packet Pg. 72
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. June 26,2018
3
02 SITE DEVELOPMENT
The PSB and Garage sites create several diverse pedestrian environments with character and
uses based on location. The main focal point is a plaza zone that bookends the two sides of Birch
Street; the east plaza in front of the PSB—the larger of the two—accommodates a variety of
pedestrian activities in small- to medium-sized groupings, while the plaza on the west side of
Birch primarily accommodates seating and shade for individual passive activities. The Park Blvd.
and Ash Street frontages are focused on accommodating generous pedestrian movement to and
from California Avenue, wide sidewalk areas for people walking together as a group (as is
common during the lunch hour rush). Sherman Avenue does not experience as much pedestrian
activity, and has been designed for quiet, passive shaded seating. Jacaranda Alley is a low
pedestrian-use area as well and has been designed to support and reinforce the mid-block
paseos that connect the alley to California Avenue. The Jacaranda frontage of the PSB has a solid
wall along its length that serves as both a vehicle barrier and security screen; this wall has been
elaborated with vines, and setback seating to mitigate its presence and offer visual and furniture
amenities for the alley neighbors. From a street lighting standpoint, all the pedestrian areas will
be lit with a low-level, focused pedestrian lighting that reinforce the intimate and small-scale
aspects of the plazas/streets, avoid light-pollution, and reinforce the civic character of the
facilities.
Vehicular movement is a key consideration in the site development of these two blocks. Due to
its lower pedestrian volumes, Sherman Avenue will be the primary vehicular activity zone, with
patrol vehicles entering off Sherman. The staff vehicle ramp will be located on Jacaranda lane.
The primary building entries for both the PSB and the Garage are oriented toward the Birch
Street plaza zone. The PSB entry is a single -story pavilion scaled to match the deep setback of
the PSB plaza and is approached through a generous civic staircase and ramp. The Garage has a
dramatic exterior staircase that animates the plaza side of the garage with pedestrian
movement. These building entrance orientations reinforce the plaza zone with pedestrian access
and movement. Staff entry to the PSB will be adjacent to the emergency vehicle-only curb cut-
out along Sherman.
The site design has also been influenced by input from city agencies as part of the DRC design
review process. Meetings with DRC, design revisions based on input from various City
departments (Planning, Transportation, etc.) including:
PSB:
The 10’-0” high security wall along Jacaranda was moved further away from the property line
to provide a continuous sidewalk and meet the 10’ planning setback requirement.
A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) will be required for portion of alley-facing Concrete
wall taller than 4’-0”
PF Zone exception will be required for the basement parking at PSB
The entry alignment of the Birch Street ramp has been shifted to connect with Jacaranda
Sidewalk curb locations have been adjusted and pedestrian crossing bulb-outs have been
added
2.e
Packet Pg. 73
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. June 26,2018
4
The provision for native trees has been increased to 25% overall
The Birch street median will be shortened slightly @ Sherman to facilitate pedestrian crossing
03 MATERIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND ARCHITECTURE
Formally, the PSB and Garage exterior designs combine to create a consistent approach to the
public realm, yet, each of the buildings retain an independent aesthetic identity. The PSB is the
more civic of the two projects and is designed to convey the dignity and importance of the
functions housed within. The Garage has a more deferential presence, with its large volume
downplayed through massing and screening strategies, and deferring to the civic moments it can
offer—a grand staircase, an arcade and various public art sites. The two buildings work in tandem
to create a dramatic framing of the Birch St. right-of-way and a generous pedestrian realm.
The PSB and Garage share a material palette for what are called the civic points-of-contact. These
exceptional moments—entry portal, grand staircase, arcade, pedestrian seating, overarching
canopies—share a palette of terra cotta, a material/color consistent with Palo Alto precedents. It
is a color that helps elevate the visual impact of these points-of-contact by creating dramatic
visual accents. The two buildings also share an understated palette for the remainder of the
buildings, favoring quiet, restrained surfaces that are animated through texture and subtle
massing strategies.
PSB:
The PSB massing is based on the articulation of a simple three-story rectangular volume. This
volume is elaborated through a series of additive, subtractive and textural strategies.
Subtractively, the volume is eroded utilizing: glass revealing a public staircase at Birch/Sherman;
carve-outs at a Level 02 exterior deck; a glazed ground level along the Birch Street plaza
referential to the consistent storefront porosity of California Ave; and, generous window areas
for key programmatic functions (such as the publicly accessible Multi-purpose Room). The
additive massing components include: a dramatic canopy at the roofline of the building that
inflects toward the main public plaza; site security walls articulated as though the building base
has “slipped out” and extended over the site.
The primary exterior material for the PSB is in cast-in-place concrete. This material provides for
the stringent ballistic resistance requirements as well as the desired durability and aesthetics.
The terra cotta concrete panels have a rough, board formed texture. Additional exterior
materials include clear glass; painted steel at overhangs, color-coded as “civic” elements, as
described above; and, Porcelain tile mixed with glass at the third floor
The building requires a 135’ high telecommunications tower. This element will be integrated into
the building by providing a roof-mounted monopole. This element visually relates to the pattern
of verticals in the exterior design. Mounting it to the building will improve its overall visual
integration.
Overall, the PSB design provides an operationally responsive, high-security environment required
of a law enforcement and emergency response building but does so without visible fortressing.
2.e
Packet Pg. 74
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. June 26,2018
5
04 LANDSCAPE STATEMENT OF DESIGN INTENT
The project includes the landscape at two central parcels of the busy commercial area
surrounding the new Public Safety Building and the Parking Structure.
Public Safety Building: The landscape of the PSB occupies a full block with four unique frontages.
Each orientation has distinct programmatic demands, yet the overall landscape shares a family of
elements and a vocabulary of streetscape, plantings and furnishings. The landscape reinforces
the role of the PSB site as 1) a good neighbor, 2) a promoter of diverse activities, and 3) a symbol
of community policing. The landscape also provides a great civic amenity and enhanced
streetscape for this vibrant commercial center. The landscape is seen as a protective envelope
that provides color, texture and contact with nature, and serves as a space for civic functions and
public use.
Birch Street is a gateway into the California Avenue Business District and the sidewalk street
trees reinforces this role. The plaza on the Birch Street frontage marks the main entry to the
Public Safety Building with an open and welcoming civic space. The Plaza is approximately 5,000
square feet, fronts the Birch Street sidewalk, and provides places for people to sit, eat, socialize
and pass through on their way to the California Avenue business district. The plaza steps leading
to the entry of the PSB provide a plinth for the building as a clear forecourt to the PSB.
The PSB plaza features a low stone wall, a series of natural stone bollards and a large raised
planter that provides landscaping soil and plantings otherwise absent due to the parking
structure directly below. The stone wall and bollards provide a security barrier to vehicles, while
providing a natural material that demarcates entry into the public plaza. This large civic-scaled
planter is shaped to invite passage from the direction of California Ave. The plaza area is
bordered to the southwest by a double row of trees that reinforces the pedestrian realm and
provides shade for the sidewalk and for seating within the plaza. A diversity of seating types –
built-in, planter edge, and moveable units—characterize the furnishings. The plaza paving is a
variable pattern of stone or pre-cast concrete, differentiated from the field paving to accent
building entry, community room, and an inside/outside flow into the lobby. The paving within
the seating areas in the planting bands is a smaller, intimate scale. Fixed furnishings support the
light poles within the plaza and function as discrete vehicular barriers. The fixtures are tapered
poles with multiple heads providing a tree-like motif that drifts through the plaza. Site furniture-
integrated lights supplement the poles lights for visual variety. The plaza planting is purposefully
designed as a “demonstration” garden highlighting plants for water conservation and provision
of habitat - for example California native pollinator species, native grasses, drought tolerant
succulents, and native meadow rain garden planting palettes. Educational signage is intended to
further explain and enhance the plantings.
The remaining frontages demonstrate an equivalent attention to the public realm. Sherman
Avenue and Park Avenue frontages feature a double row of street trees, utilizing raised planters
where needed due to parking structure below; the profile of the raised planters varies to create
nested seating areas and provide raingardens for storm water treatment. Jacaranda Lane
features a raised garden courtyard secured for PSB staff; this walled garden has a mounded
grove of trees, vine-covered walls along the perimeter, and benches within gravel pathways. The
Jacaranda Lane side of the security wall also features vine plantings and lighting to create a safe
and greened passageway. The Birch Street, Sherman Avenue and Park Avenue frontages have
pedestrian pole lights and planter mounted landscape lights to provide safe and attractive
passage around the perimeter of the PSB.
2.e
Packet Pg. 75
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. June 26,2018
6
The general street tree planting strategy around the PSB frontages is to select species that will
thrive in an urban environment, provide appropriate architectural emphasis and scale on each of
the three frontages, and have relatively low maintenance and water requirements. The selection
also prioritizes the use of native species where appropriate. Specifics:
On Birch Street the priority attributes include a larger shade tree (> 40 ft. height and >30’
width) that will frame Birch Street on east and west sides creating a gateway to California
Avenue. The tree should generally have a spreading, vase-shaped canopy, relatively fine to
medium textured foliage, and providing bright green foliage coupled with dense shade. The
preferred species is a variety of Chinese Evergreen Elm (Ulmus parvifolia).
The Birch Street median provides a setting for three large shade trees with a priority for
providing a tree that is differentiated from those on the sidewalks. The attributes of this tree
may include a broad canopy as it has room horizontally over the street. With a preference for
a large, native tree a potential preferred species is Valley Oak (Quercus lobata).
On Sherman Avenue the desirable attributes include a south-east exposure, with larger shade
trees to provide summer shade and a more open canopy in winter. Ideally we would create
continuity from the Garage site across Birch Street along Sherman and plant a tree or trees
that provide a large canopy over 50’ height. The preferred species are considered to be
London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia), alternating with California sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
to provide diversity and a native species.
On Park Boulevard the trees have horizontal space and good exposure in all directions. They
will be functioning to screen the operations yard from residences across Park Blvd. The scale
of these trees should be medium to large, with a more spreading canopy form. The potential
species include Linden, Cork Oak, Sweet Gum, and London Plane.
On the north side of the building there is an enclosed employee courtyard that will have tree
plantings. Trees here should be shade tolerant, provide an intimate architectural setting, be of
a medium to small scale with a spreading canopy, and provide screening of the buildings to the
north from the office spaces above. Potential species include Japanese Maple, Silk Tree, Crape
Myrtle, Redbud, or Flowering Plum.
All trees shall be planted at 24” box size and Silva Cell systems shall be installed under sidewalk
area and over structure to expand tree root volume and ensure long-term health of trees.
Average extent of Silva Cell system components shall be from back of curb to full width of
sidewalk and connecting all tree plantings using Silva Cell 2 for Streetscapes.
The understory plantings around the PSB include the following typologies: Native and
Ornamental Grass palette, California Native and Flowering palette, Succulents and Companion
drought tolerant palette, Rain Garden Meadow palette, and Vertical palette of vine plantings. In
the plaza the Native and Ornamental Grass palette, the California Native and Flowering palette,
and the Succulents and Companion will be planted in the large raised planters that frame the
spaces in the plaza. Species may include grasses such as Muhlenbergia, Leymus, Lomandra, and
Seslaria and flowering plants with aerial flowers and long seasonal bloom for example Salvia,
Yucca, Knifophia, Anigozanthos. Succulents that may be planted include Aloe, Aeonium,
2.e
Packet Pg. 76
Palo Alto Public Safety Building
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. June 26,2018
7
Echevaria, and Sedum. The plantings along Sherman Avenue and Park Avenue will be in a series
of elevated planters alternating between the Rain Garden palette for storm water treatment and
California Native and Flowering Palette. The plant palettes will be characterized by meadow-like
plantings with accent plants that flower, add texture, and have increased habitat value for
insects, hummingbirds and butterflies, these may include Rushes, Native Poppies, Salvias,
California Fuschia, Cistus, Baccharis and others. On all of the frontages there are opportunities
for vertical plantings of a diversity of vines including Thunbergia, Jasminum, Solanum, Distictus
(Trumpet Vine) and Ficus (Creeping Fig) among others.
The irrigation strategy throughout the is to provide a fully automated irrigation system that is
weather controlled and uses water conserving low flow irrigation heads and drip irrigation where
appropriate. Controllers and backflow preventers are intended to be located in interior locations
when possible in vandal proof enclosures screened by landscaping.
2.e
Packet Pg. 77
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. 1
Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Ave Parking Garage
Palo Alto, California
7/18/2018
Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage
SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE – Public Safety Building
00
Public safety represents a diverse range of activities and responsibilities. The police and fire departments,
along with the office of emergency management, oversee prevention, enforcement, rescue, outreach,
education, monitoring, and a range of other critical activities. Public safety duties are dynamic, watchful,
protective, engaged, helpful, serious, unpredictable.
Palo Alto’s California Avenue neighborhood—the context for the City’s new Public Safety Building (PSB)—
boasts of a character equally diverse and fluid. The commercial and civic neighborhood conflates a plurality
of styles, scales, eras and characteristics. Over-scale civic and office buildings abut fine-grain historic
commercial fabric, right angles clash with diagonals, small local businesses stand national chains. The
neighborhood defies singular characterization; it displays this diversity and vibrancy proudly.
The design for the new Palo Alto Public Safety Building draws inspiration from these diversities. It is a
building with a plurality of characteristics—operational and symbolic—that weave together to create a
dynamic, integrated, programmatically and contextually responsive civic building. In this project, the civic
lies in the negotiation of difference and diversity. Eschewing hierarchy, this project lifts, gestures, embraces,
opens, inflects, reaches and glows in a dynamic balance of multiple qualities.
01
RELATIONSHIPS
The new PSB is a composition of relationships. Warm materials and varied spaces weave together in a
dynamic sequence of experiential vignettes. This building is the opposite of monolithic: relationships change
continuously as one traverses the building. These interplays are intimate and pedestrian-scaled, accessible
to touch and direct experience. The personality of the building emerges from these dynamic interplays,
coasting from welcoming to protective, inviting, shady, comfortable, colorful, civic, generous, supportive,
engaged, mysterious, firm.
02
A COMPOSITION OF THREE
The varied building elements are distilled into three analogues: Context, Mission, and The Public. Each
boasts its own unique material palette:
2.e
Packet Pg. 78
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. 2
Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Ave Parking Garage
Palo Alto, California
7/18/2018
Context. The legacy and historic scale of the California Avenue neighborhood is important to acknowledge.
By symbolically quoting the two-story scale with a stone-like volume, the PSB evokes this historic fabric and
speaks directly to its neighbors. The sand-colored porcelain tile suggests gravity and permanence, evoking
the legacy of the historic township of Mayfield.
Mission. The public safety mission is regional and expansive; in this design, the PSB mission is beacon and
light. Clear glass and polished white porcelain—poised above the two-story sand-colored volume—reflect
sky, glow at night.
The Public. The intimate experience of the individual weaves the project’s elements together. An intimate,
visceral terra-cotta tinted board-formed concrete building base inflects, and expands to support a
pedestrian-scale topography of seating, canopies, landscaping, and protection. With vertical gestures and
key symbolic junctures—the building entry, the communications tower--this terra-cotta realm provides a
sense of belonging.
03
The dynamic composition of materials and spaces converge at the point of entry to the building. The context
volume lifts, the beacon becomes transparent, and the terra-cotta realm reaches out to invite the public
inside.
2.e
Packet Pg. 79
1
Resolution No. 9772
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage Project, Making
Certain Findings Concerning Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, All
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
RECITALS
A. The City of Palo Alto (“City”) has proposed a project to relocate its public safety
functions from their current Downtown location and construct a new public safety building and
public parking garage on adjacent sites at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue that are currently used
as surface parking lots in the California Avenue commercial area in Palo Alto (the “PSB Project”
or the “Project”).
B. Approval of the PSB Project would constitute a project under the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related state implementation
guidelines promulgated thereunder (“CEQA”).
C. The City is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as
it has the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Project.
D. The City, in compliance with CEQA, prepared an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of approving and
constructing the PSB Project and approving associated zoning code amendments.
E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was circulated for public
review from January 8, 2018 through February 22, 2018, during which time the City held public
hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIR. The hearings were held by the City’s
Architectural Review Board (ARB) on January 18, 2018 and Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) on January 31, 2018.
F. The City considered the comments received during the Draft EIR public review
period and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”). The Final
Environmental Impact Report is comprised of the Draft EIR, together with the Final
Environmental Impact Report published on May 11, 2018 (collectively, all of said documents are
referred to herein as the “EIR”).
G. The Council is the decision-making body for approval of the proposed Project.
H. CEQA requires that in connection with approval of a project for which an
environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies one or more significant
environmental effects of the project, the decision-making body of a public agency make certain
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 80
2
findings regarding those effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Certification and General Findings
The City Council, in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following
findings to comply with the requirements of CEQA, including Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093
of the CEQA Guidelines, based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Project. All
statements set forth in this Resolution constitute formal findings of the City Council, including
the statements set forth in this paragraph and in the recitals above.
1. The City Council was presented with, and has independently reviewed and analyzed the
EIR and other information in the record and has considered the information contained
therein prior to acting upon and approving the Project, and bases the findings stated
below on such review.
2. The EIR provides an adequate basis for considering and acting upon the Project. The City
Council has considered all of the evidence and arguments presented during
consideration of the Project and the EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a
significant impact on the environment, and in adopting the findings set forth herein, the
City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code Sections 21081,
21081.5, and 21082.2.
3. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the EIR with respect to all impacts
initially identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been
described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the EIR. This finding
does not apply to impacts identified as significant or potentially significant that are
reduced to a less than significant level by mitigation measures included in the EIR. The
disposition of each of those impacts and the mitigation measures adopted to reduce
them are addressed specifically in the findings below.
4. Mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts of the Project
will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
described below, which is the responsibility of the City.
5. The EIR considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to
foster informed decision making, public participation and a reasoned choice, in
accordance with CEQA.
6. The Final EIR contains responses to comments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR
also contains corrections and clarifications to the text and analysis of the Draft EIR
where warranted. The City Council does hereby find that such changes and additional
information are not significant new information under CEQA because such changes and
additional information do not indicate that any of the following would result from
approval and implementation of the Project: (i) any new significant environmental
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 81
3
impact or substantially more severe environmental impact (not already disclosed and
evaluated in the DEIR), (ii) any feasible mitigation measure considerably different from
those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of
the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented, or (iii) any feasible
alternative considerably different from those analyzed in the DEIR that would lessen a
significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be
implemented. The City Council does find and determine that recirculation of the Final
EIR for further public review and comment is not warranted or required under the
provisions of CEQA.
7. The City Council does hereby find and certify that the EIR has been prepared and
completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the City of Palo Alto’s independent
judgment and analysis.
8. The City Council does hereby make the following findings with respect to significant
effects on the environment of the Project, as identified in the EIR, with the
understanding that all of the information in this Resolution is intended as a summary of
the full administrative record supporting the EIR, which full administrative record should
be consulted for the full details supporting these findings.
SECTION 2. Findings on Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City
Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental
impacts from approval and implementation of the PSB Project and the means for mitigating
those impacts.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact
contained in the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and
state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in
the EIR. These findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR
that support the EIR's determinations regarding significant project impacts and mitigation
measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in
the record as a whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the
analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings
the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation
measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically
and expressly modified by these findings.
The Draft EIR and the Final EIR identified a number of significant and potentially significant
environmental impacts that the Project will cause or contribute to. All of these significant
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 82
4
effects can be fully addressed and reduced to less than significant through the adoption and
implementation of standard project requirements incorporated as part of the Project and
feasible mitigation measures. Those impacts, along with the standard project requirements
and mitigation measures to reduce them to less than significant, are listed below as referenced
in the Final EIR.
Air Quality
Impact 5-1: Project construction would expose sensitive receptors located adjacent to and in
close proximity of the proposed Project site to localized, outdoor concentrations of DPM and
PM2.5 that could exceed BAAQMD risk thresholds even with the implementation of standard
BAAQMD construction measures.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 5.3.6 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these
findings:
MM 5-1 Construction Air Contaminant Emissions
To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated with PM2.5
emissions, including emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated
during Project construction activities, the City and/or its designated
contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel
shall:
1. Implement BAAQMD-recommended “Additional Construction Measures”.
The City shall implement the following BAAQMD-recommended additional
construction mitigation measures during construction activities:
1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to
maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent, to be verified by lab
samples or moisture probe.
2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be
suspended when average winds speeds exceed 20 miles per hour.
3. Temporary wind breaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the
windward (generally the north / northwest) of actively disturbed areas of
construction. The wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air
porosity
4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed)
shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered
appropriately until vegetation is established
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 83
5
5. Simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-
disturbing construction activities in the same area at any one time shall
be limited and/or phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at
any one time.
6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off
prior to leaving the site.
7. Site access to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road, or as much
as feasible, shall be treated with a compacted layer of wood chips, mulch,
gravel, or other cover as feasible to reduce track-out.
8. Minimize the idling time for diesel-powered construction equipment
to two minutes provided such idling restrictions are consistent with
manufacturer’s equipment specifications.
2. Construction equipment restrictions. The City shall apply the following
construction equipment restrictions to the proposed Project:
1. Electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas equipment
shall be employed instead of diesel powered equipment to the maximum
extent feasible.
2. All construction equipment with a rated power-output of 25
horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Final
Emission Standards for particulate matter. This may be achieved via the
use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV
emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been
retrofitted with a CARB-verified diesel emission control strategy (e.g.,
oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM
emissions to levels that meet Tier IV standards.
3. Prepare Construction Risk Reduction Plan. Prior to the start of construction
activity, the City and/or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Risk
Reduction Plan for the Project which:
1. Identifies the final planned construction phasing schedule and
anticipated equipment operations.
2. Estimates the proposed Project’s construction emissions based on the
final phasing and equipment plan. Any emission update shall be
performed using the latest-recommended emissions estimator model
recommended by the BAAQMD or other standard, acceptable
methodology (e.g., contractor-specific fleet emission factors and
estimates of equipment operating hours)
3. Models the potential diesel particulate matter and total PM2.5
concentrations resulting from refined emissions estimates. Any modeling
shall be performed using an accepted screening or refined dispersion-
model recommended for use by the BAAQMD. The modeling shall focus
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 84
6
on discrete, residential receptors located at and near the proposed
Project site.
4. Estimates potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to
DPM. Risk estimates shall follow the latest recommendations of the
BAAQMD. The goal of the risk estimation shall be to identify the
receptor(s) or areas of receptors where carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risk thresholds may be exceeded. If risks are exceeded, the
plan shall identify feasible on- and off-site measures to reduce risks to
levels below BAAQMD thresholds. On-site measures may include the
BAAQMD “Additional Construction Measures” and construction
equipment restrictions included in Mitigation Measure 5-1, as well as
phasing / activity restrictions. Off-site measures may include coordinating
with all impacted receptors to replace and upgrade existing HVAC
systems to provide high-performance panel filters capable of reducing
potential modeled outdoor PM2.5 concentrations / risks to levels that are
below BAAQMD thresholds.
4. Implement Off-Site Mitigation. In-lieu of preparing the Construction Risk
Reduction Plan identified above, the City may, prior to the start of construction
activities, coordinate directly with impacted residential receptors to replace and
upgrade existing residential HVAC systems with a high-performance panel filter
with a rated minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) for particles in the
range of 0.3 to 1.0 µm of 70% (presumed to be a minimum MERV-14), or
equivalent system upgrade. This level of control would reduce risks to levels
below current BAAQMD thresholds. Based on the results of the modeling
conducted for the EIR, the City shall coordinate with residential receptors
located in the area bound by Park Boulevard to the north, Ash Street to the
south, Sheridan Avenue to the east, and Sherman Avenue to the west.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measure 5-1 would limit construction activities and
require the implementation of controls that would reduce predicted adverse construction
health risks to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure 5-1 would reduce toxic air
contaminant emissions generated during Project construction to less than significant.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure 5-1 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
Biological Resources
Impact 6-1: Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds. The proposed PSB Project is intended to
improve the natural environment on the Project site with an extensive array of coordinated
new landscaping and trees. However, 38 existing trees are proposed to be removed. Without a
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 85
7
proactive mitigation procedure in place, Project construction could inadvertently result in the
removal of trees containing nests or eggs of migratory birds, raptors, or bird species during the
nesting season, which would be considered an "unlawful take" under the Federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and USFW provisions protecting migratory and nesting birds.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 6.3.2 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these
findings.
MM 6-1 Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds
To avoid impacts to nesting birds and violation of State and federal laws
pertaining to birds, all construction-related activities (including but not
limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal,
fence installation, demolition, and grading) should occur outside the avian
nesting season (that is, prior to February 1 or after August 31). If construction
and construction noise occurs within the avian nesting season (from
February 1 to August 31), all suitable habitats located within the Project’s
area of disturbance, including staging and storage areas plus a 150-foot
buffer around these areas, shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the
presence of active nests by a qualified biologist no more than five days
before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment
mobilization. If Project activities are delayed by more than five days, an
additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active nesting is present if
a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed
carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented. If it
is determined that birds are actively nesting within the survey area, the
additional procedures below shall apply. Conversely, if the survey area is
found to be absent of nesting birds, the additional procedures shall not be
required.
Additional Procedures. If pre-construction nesting bird surveys result in the
location of active nests, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy
equipment (including but not limited to equipment staging, fence
installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation,
demolition, and grading) shall take place within 150 feet of nests, or as
determined by a qualified biologist, until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring
shall be required to insure compliance with the MBTA and relevant California
Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be
documented.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 86
8
incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measure 6-1 includes measures to protect nesting birds,
including conducting nesting surveys prior to construction and retaining a qualified biologist to
monitor activities and ensure nesting species are not disturbed. Mitigation Measure 6-1 would
reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to less than significant.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure 6-1 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact 6-2: Removal of Protected and Street Trees. Because 6 protected trees and 5 street
trees (those within street rights-of-way) are proposed to be removed as part of the proposed
PSB Project, Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) Chapters 8.04 and 8.10
would apply to the Project to require on-site tree replacement or off-site replacement and
mitigation in accordance with the standards in the City’s Tree Technical Manual (Section
8.10.050(d)(2)). Without adequate replacement or other mitigation as set forth in the Tree
Technical Manual, the Project would be inconsistent with the Municipal Code tree protection
provisions.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 6.3.2 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these
findings:
MM 6-2 Removal of Protected and Street Trees
Prior to removal of the protected trees and street trees, the applicant shall
obtain a tree removal permit issued by the City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry
Division for the removal of any and all protected, designated, or street trees
(referred to collectively as “Regulated Trees”). In all cases, replacement trees
would be required as a condition of the tree removal permit, and the Project
applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that there is no
alternative that could preserve the tree(s) on-site. The Project applicant must
provide an evaluation and summary for any Regulated Tree (the collective
term for any protected, designated, or street tree) proposed to be removed.
The applicant shall be required, in accordance with the Tree Protection and
Management Regulations (PAMC 8.10) and Tree Technical Manual (PAMC
8.10.130), to replace the tree canopy for the six (6) protected trees and five
(5) street trees, in accordance with the tree canopy formula identified in the
Tree Technical Manual (TTM, 3.20). If the tree canopy cannot be replaced on-
site, the canopy shall be replaced off-site as close to the project site as
feasible. If trees are being replaced off-site, the applicant must submit a Tree
Planting Plan to the Urban Forestry Division and obtain the Urban Forestry
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 87
9
Division’s approval of the plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The Tree
Planting Plan must include:
The canopy calculation for trees removed and the number of trees planned to
replace them, consistent with the formula identified in the Tree Technical
Manual
The specific location where the new trees would be planted with specific
baseline information about that proposed site (e.g., surrounding vegetation or
development)
The species of trees to be planted
Specific planting details (e.g., size of sapling, size of containers, irrigation plan)
Success criteria
Monitoring and maintenance schedule
Replacement tree planting will be monitored by a qualified arborist. To verify the
success of replacement trees, monitoring shall occur for two years after initial
planting. After the two-year period, the arborist will determine if the trees are
capable of surviving without further maintenance.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measure 6-2 includes measures to replace trees
consistent with City of Palo Alto Tree Protection and Management Regulations (PAMC 8.10),
the Tree Technical Manual (PAMC 8.10.130), and the protocols and standards of the Urban
Forestry Division. Mitigation Measure 6-2 would reduce impacts on the removal of protected
and street trees to less than significant.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure 6-2 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
Cultural and Historic Resources
Impact 7-1: Potential Disturbance of Archaeological or Paleontological Resources. Project
construction (e.g., excavation for underground parking and utilities) could disturb existing
unrecorded sensitive archaeological or paleontological resources at the PSB Project site.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 7.3.2 of the Draft EIR.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 88
10
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these
findings:
MM 7-1 Potential Disturbance of Archaeological or Paleontological
Resources
In the event of the unanticipated discovery of subsurface archaeological or
paleontological resources during earth-moving operations, the following
measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts on
these resources to a less-than-significant level:
Conduct Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction
Personnel. The City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, and a
professionally qualified paleontologist, to conduct an
Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel
prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session will
include a written handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological and
paleontological resources that may be encountered during earth-moving
activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of
archaeological and paleontological monitors, and the general steps a qualified
professional archaeologist or paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage
investigation if one is necessary.
Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if
Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological
resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the ground-
disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find
so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be
established around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to
continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered
artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to
continue outside the buffer area.
All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be
evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the
newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American
Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American
construction monitoring should be initiated. The City shall coordinate with the
archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The
plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to
address treatment of the resources, along with subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 89
11
Conduct Periodic Archaeological Resources Spot Checks During Grading and
Earth-Moving Activities in All Sediments. The City shall retain a qualified
professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct periodic Archaeological
Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to determine if construction
excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological
resources. After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks
shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist.
If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have
exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological artifacts,
construction monitoring for archaeological resources will be required. The City
shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets the qualifications set
forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and
Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional
archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all
construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into
non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require
multiple archaeological monitors.
The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and
grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials
being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if
found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-
time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate
by the project archaeologist.
If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt in
the vicinity of the resources and a qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the
resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of
adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially
significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be
collected and processed by the qualified paleontologist to recover micro
vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be
prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall
be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.
Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall be provided to a
museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this
work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited
in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage. A report
documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the
significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 90
12
when submitted to the lead agency, shall signify the completion of the program
to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.
c) Finding and Rationale. Mitigation Measure 7-1 includes measures to protect as-
yet undiscovered archaeological and paleontological resources, including conducting training
for construction personnel, ceasing ground-disturbing activities upon any discovery,
implementation of a treatment plan by a qualified professional archaeologist, conducting spot
checks, monitoring excavation activities, and collection and preparation of paleontological
resources by a qualified paleontologist. Mitigation Measure 7-1 would reduce impacts on
archaeological and paleontological resources to less than significant.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure 7-1 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact 7-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. Project construction
activities (e.g., excavation) could disturb as yet unidentified and/or unrecorded tribal cultural
resources, including possible human remains.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 7.3.2 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these
findings:
MM 7-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources
In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified
during construction, all earth-disturbing work within the vicinity of the find
must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has
evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native
American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the
City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus
significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented
in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American
groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of
the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment
of the resource in coordination with the archaeologist and the appropriate
Native American tribal representative.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measure 7-2 includes measures to protect as-yet
undiscovered tribal cultural resources, including evaluation by a qualified archaeologist,
consultation with an appropriate Native American representative, and implementing a
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 91
13
mitigation plan. Mitigation Measure 7-2 would reduce potential impacts on tribal cultural
resources to less than significant.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure 7-2 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
Geology and Soils
Impact 8-1: Geotechnical Hazards Associated with Project Excavation and Grading. The
Project's proposed excavation and grading activities have the potential to create conditions that
would potentially compromise the safety or stability of proposed Project improvements. The
preliminary site-specific geotechnical investigation (Romig Engineers, May 2016) made initial
assessments of these conditions, but a construction-level geotechnical investigation will be
needed to adequately address all grading and excavation activities on the proposed Public
Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage (PSB Project) site. Without such a
detailed study--and without the associated supervision of an engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer during Project grading and construction--the safety and long-term
stability of existing and proposed Project improvements cannot be assured.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 8.3.3 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these
findings:
MM 8-1 Geotechnical Hazards Associated with Project Excavation and
Grading
As recommended by the Project's preliminary geotechnical investigation,
prior to City issuance of grading permits for individual Project construction
components, the City shall be required to retain a registered engineering
geologist or geotechnical engineer to prepare detailed, construction-level
geotechnical investigations to guide the construction of all Project grading
and excavation activities. The detailed, construction-level geotechnical
investigations shall be performed for each of the structures proposed for the
development site. Subsurface conditions shall be explored and laboratory
tests conducted on selected soil samples to establish parameters for the
design of excavations, foundations, shoring, and waterproofing.
Recommendations from the investigations shall be incorporated into all plans
for Project grading, excavation, soil support (both temporary and long-term),
and utility construction, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The detailed, construction-level investigations, relevant recommendations,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 92
14
and all associated Project grading, excavation and foundation plans, shall be
subject to review and approval by an independent engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer retained by the City Engineer. In addition, the project
civil engineer shall certify to the City Engineer (e.g., through plan submittal
for City review) that all relevant provisions of the investigations have been
incorporated into the grading, excavation and construction plans, and all
earthwork and site preparation shall be performed under the direct
supervision of a registered engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measure 8-1 includes measures to ensure the safety and
stability of all Project improvements, including the structures and associated infrastructure.
Mitigation Measure 8-1 would reduce geotechnical hazards associated with Project excavation
and grading to less than significant.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure 8-1 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 10-1: Potential Project-Related Exposure to Existing Soil or Groundwater
Contamination. Project-related excavation and construction activities could expose on-site
construction personnel, employees, and members of the public to existing soil and
groundwater contamination.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 10.3.3 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and
will be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of
these findings:
MM 10-1 Potential Project-Related Exposure to Existing Soil or
Groundwater Contamination: Recommendations included in the Phase II
ESA (Stantec, June 8, 2017) shall be implemented, based on construction-
level project plans when more specific and precise design and construction
activities are formulated. The Phase II ESA recommends additional
assessment of local and regional groundwater conditions in advance of
dewatering activities, combined with, as necessary, evaluation of pertinent
and cost-effective water management strategies, including preparation of
Site Management Plans. Likewise, the Project must comply with the City’s
standard dewatering requirements. This assessment and mitigation process
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 93
15
shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measure 10-1 includes measures to ensure that the
Project would not result in soil or groundwater contamination. Mitigation Measure 10-1 would
reduce potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts to less than significant.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure 10-1 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
Noise
Impact 13-1 Project Construction Noise. Project construction would include site preparation,
excavation and grading, utility trenching, construction of a new parking garage and public
safety building, and application of architectural coatings. The noise levels generated by Project
construction would be in excess of 10 dB above ambient conditions at sensitive receptor
locations for several hours a day for a period of approximately 16 to 21 months.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 13.3.2 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these
findings:
MM 13-1 Project Construction Noise: To reduce potential noise levels
associated construction of the proposed Project, the City and/or its
designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate
personnel shall:
Restrict work hours/equipment noise. All work shall be subject to the
construction noise and time limits contained in City Municipal Code Chapter
9.10. Construction activities (including deliveries) shall only occur during the
following time periods:
– 8 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday; and
– 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday
Construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City
and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site
informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of these
requirements in accordance with Section 9.10.060(c). The sign shall also provide
a name (or title) and phone number for an appropriate on-site and City
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 94
16
representative to contact to submit a noise complaint.
Construction equipment care, siting, and design measures. The following
construction equipment care, siting, and design measures shall apply during
construction activities:
– Heavy equipment engines shall be covered and exhaust pipes shall include a
muffler in good working condition. Pneumatic tools shall include a noise
suppression device on the compressed air exhaust.
– All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and
welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor
locations as practical. At a minimum, such shielding shall consist of a three-
sided sound enclosure (with a full or partial roof) that provides for proper
ventilation, equipment operation, and effective noise control. The enclosure
should be designed to achieve a 10 to 15 dB reduction in stationary
equipment noise levels. The design of the enclosure shall be reviewed by a
qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure the enclosure
will achieve a minimum 10 dB reduction in stationary equipment noise levels.
– The City shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use
of stationary, diesel- or other alternatively-fueled power generators.
– No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the
property line of the construction site.
Construction traffic. Construction truck traffic, including soil hauling, equipment
deliveries, potential concrete deliveries, and other vendor deliveries shall follow
designated delivery routes prepared for the project, which are anticipated to
include travel on Oregon Expressway and Birch Road.
Construct/Install Temporary Noise Barrier: The City shall install and maintain
throughout the duration of all site preparation, excavation, foundation
construction, and building construction activities, one or more physical noise
barriers capable of achieving a minimum reduction in predicted construction
noise levels of 15.5 dB. Potential barrier options would include:
– A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to
structures located at-grade, such as K-Rail) along the project property line.
Such a wall/barrier shall consist of material that have a minimum rated
transmission loss value of 25.5 dB (or equivalent rating), and shall contain no
gaps in the structure through which noise may pass.
– Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic
barrier blankets installed along the project property line, building envelope
or, if feasible and necessary, at or near sensitive residential receptor areas.
– Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of
achieving a 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels at sensitive
receptor locations.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 95
17
– Prior to the start of the Project, the City may prepare an acoustical analysis
that reflects the final site plan, construction activities, equipment use and
duration, and refines potential construction noise reductions required for the
project.
The final type, placement, and design of the Project’s temporary noise barrier(s)
shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to
ensure proper function and a minimum attenuation of 15.5 dBs in construction
noise levels.
Prepare Project Construction Noise Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction
activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint
Plan for the Project which:
– Identifies the name and/or title and contact information (including phone
number and email) of the contractor and City representatives responsible for
addressing construction-noise related issues.
– Contains a detailed construction schedule and predicted noise levels
associated with construction activities.
– Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive,
respond, and resolve to construction noise complaints. At a minimum, upon
receipt of a noise complaint, the contractor and/or City representative
described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the noise source
generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take
steps to resolve the complaint.
Prepare Construction Noise Monitoring Plan. Prior to the start of construction,
the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Monitoring Plan
which identifies:
– Construction activities, hours of operation, and predicted construction noise
levels; and
– Construction noise monitoring locations, duration, and frequency.
The intent of the Construction Noise Monitoring Plan is to document updated
ambient noise levels, monitor construction noise levels, and verify compliance
with the noise reduction requirements in Mitigation Measure 13-1. If monitoring
indicates temporary noise barriers are not achieving a minimum 15.5 dB
reduction in construction noise levels or otherwise indicates construction noise
is resulting a 10 dB increase in noise levels above ambient conditions, the City
shall increase the height, size (length or width), density, and/or amount of noise
barriers installed such that attenuation requirements are achieved. The
Construction Noise Monitoring Plan may be combined with and/or incorporated
into the Construction Noise Complaint Plan described above.
The implementation of these measures would limit construction activities and
require the implementation of controls that would reduce predicted construction
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 96
18
noise levels to less than a 10 dB increase above existing ambient conditions.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measure 13-1 mandates that specific noise control
measures be included in contract specifications, such as work hour and construction noise
restrictions; construction equipment care, siting, and design measures; temporary noise
barriers; a Construction Noise Control Plan; and a Construction Noise Monitoring Plan.
Mitigation Measure 13-1 would limit construction activities and require the implementation of
controls that would reduce predicted construction noise levels to less than significant.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure 13-1 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact 13-2 Project Groundborne Vibration Levels. Project construction activities could
generate perceptible groundborne vibration at adjacent buildings, including residential
buildings, for a period of approximately 8 months.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 13.3.2 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these
findings:
MM 13-2 Potential Groundborne Vibration Levels
To reduce potential groundborne vibration levels associated with
construction of the proposed Project, the City and/or its designated
contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel
shall:
Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The City shall prohibit the use of large vibratory
rollers (small plate compactors are acceptable) and vibratory pile driving
equipment during construction. Any deep foundation piers or caissons shall be
auger drilled.
Provide Notice to Adjacent Property Owners/Occupants. Five (5) days advanced
written notice shall be provided to adjacent property owners and building
occupants before commencing all drilling and significant earthmoving activities
within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. The notice shall provide the name (or title)
and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor
and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-
related concerns.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 97
19
Prepare Vibration Mitigation Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the
City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Vibration Response Plan for
the project which:
– Identifies the name and/or title and contact information (including phone
number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible
for addressing construction vibration-related issues.
– Contains a detailed schedule of drilling and substantial earth moving
activities expected to occur within 65 feet of adjacent buildings.
– Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive,
respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum,
upon receipt of a vibration complaint, the Contractor and/or City
representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the
vibration source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the
complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by reducing groundborne
vibration levels to less than 75 VdB and 0.04 in/sec PPV. Such measures may
include the use of non-impact drivers, use of rubber-tired equipment instead
of track equipment, or other measures that limit annoyance from
groundborne vibration levels.
The implementation of these measures would limit the potential for groundborne
vibration during construction activities, require advanced notice to adjacent
property owners and building occupants, and develop procedures designed to limit
potential annoyance and interference with daily activities at adjacent buildings.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measure 13-2 mandates that specific groundborne
vibration control measures be included in contract specifications, such as vibratory equipment
prohibitions, notice to adjacent property owners and occupants, and a Construction Vibration
Mitigation Plan. Mitigation Measure 13-2 would reduce groundborne vibration impacts to less
than significant.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure 13-2 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant.
Impact 13-3 Project Operational Noise. Noise generated by the parking garage ventilation
fans and the Public Safety Building generator, fire pump, and heating and air conditioning
equipment may exceed standards contained in the City Municipal Code unless shielding or
other means of attenuation is provided.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 13.3.2 of the Draft EIR.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 98
20
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these
findings:
MM 13-3 Project Operational Noise: To reduce potential stationary source
noise levels associated with the operation of the proposed Project, the City
and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other
appropriate personnel shall:
Site equipment away from residential areas. Garage ventilation fans and public
safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating and air conditioning
equipment shall be located outside of setbacks and screened from view from
residential areas.
Enclose and/or Shield Stationary Noise-Generating Equipment. The City shall
enclose, shield, baffle, or otherwise attenuate noise generated from garage
ventilation fans and Public Safety Building generators, fire pumps, and heating
and air conditioning equipment. The attenuation achieved through such
enclosure, shielding, and/or baffling shall be sufficient to comply with Section
9.10.050(a) of the Municipal Code.
Prepare Acoustical Study. In accordance with Chapters 9.10 and 18.23 of the
Municipal Code, the City shall have an acoustical analysis prepared by a licensed
acoustical engineer that demonstrates:
– The proposed parking garage’s generator would comply with the
requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted).
– The proposed parking garages ventilation fans would not result in a
calculated Ldn of 63.0 at sensitive residential receptor locations.
– The proposed Public Safety Building fire pump, back-up generator, and
heating and air conditioning equipment would comply with the requirements
of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted) and would not
result in a calculated increase of more than 3.0 dB Ldn at sensitive receptor
locations.
The acoustical analysis shall be based on the final Project design, reflect the actual
equipment type and location at the Project site, and the actual noise enclosure,
shielding, or other attenuation measures included in the final Project design. If the
acoustical study demonstrates the noise levels from these sources would be at or
within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits, the City shall demonstrate through
monitoring that the equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels.
Implementation of these measures would ensure the Project is designed and
constructed in a manner consistent with the City’s Municipal Code requirements.
c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 99
21
incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measure 13-3 mandates that specific operational noise
control measures be included in contract specifications, such as the siting of noise-generating
equipment away from residential areas; enclosing and shielding noise-generating equipment;
and a subsequent acoustical analysis based on the final project design. Mitigation Measure 13-3
would reduce operational noise impacts to less than significant.
d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure 13-3 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts to less than significant. No residual impacts would remain.
SECTION 3. Project Alternatives
Public Resources Code section 21002 prohibits a public agency from approving a project
if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. When a lead agency
finds, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, that a project will still cause
one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided,
it must, prior to approving the project as mitigated, first determine whether there are any
project alternatives that are feasible and that would substantially lessen or avoid the project's
significant impacts.
Because all of the Project’s impacts are being mitigated through the adoption of
mitigation measures described above, and because the Project will thus not result in any
significant environmental effects, the City Council finds that there is no need to further consider
the feasibility of any of the alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(a) CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes made to the project that it has
adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. An MMRP has
been prepared and is recommended for adoption by the City Council concurrently with the
adoption of these findings to ensure compliance with standard project requirements
incorporated as part of the project and mitigation measures during Project implementation. As
required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the MMRP designates responsibility and
anticipated timing for the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the
Final EIR. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period.
(b) The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, and finds, determines, and declares that the adoption
of the MMRP will ensure enforcement and continued imposition of the mitigation measures
recommended in the Final EIR, and set forth in the MMRP, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant impacts on the environment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 100
22
SECTION 5. Location and Custodian of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which
the City Council based the foregoing findings and approval of the Project are located at the
Department of Planning and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301. The official custodian of the record is the Planning Director at the same address.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: June 11, 2018
AYES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, FINE, HOLMAN, KNISS, KOU, SCHARFF, WOLBACH
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: TANAKA
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 101
23
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING AND CALIFORNIA
AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse No. 2017032066
CITY OF PALO ALTO
JUNE 2018
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 102
24
P R E F A C E
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency
to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program whenever it approves a project for
which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment. The purpose of the monitoring or reporting program is to ensure
compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.
The Environmental Impact Report concluded that that all identified environmental impacts
associated with the proposed Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels, either
with the implementation of standard project requirements proposed as part of the Project
and/or mitigation measures identified in the analysis, and that no significant unavoidable
impacts would occur from proposed Project implementation. This Mitigation Monitoring
or Reporting Program addresses the required measures in terms of how and when they
will be implemented.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 103
Page 1 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
EXHIBIT B
PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING AND CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation Entity
Monitoring and Verification
Entity
Timing Requirements
Signature Date
AIR QUALITY
Impact 5-1: Construction Toxic Air
Contaminant Emissions. Project
construction would expose sensitive receptors located adjacent to and in close proximity of the proposed project site to localized, outdoor concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 that could exceed BAAQMD risk thresholds even with the implementation of standard BAAQMD construction measures.
Mitigation 5-1. To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated with PM2.5 emissions, including
emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated during project construction activities, the City and/or its designated contractors, contractors' representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall: 1. Implement BAAQMD-recommended “Additional
Construction Measures”. The City shall implement the following BAAQMD-recommended additional construction mitigation measures during construction activities: 1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent, to be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average winds speeds
exceed 20 miles per hour. 3. Temporary wind breaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the windward (generally the north / northwest) of actively disturbed areas of construction. The wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent
air porosity. 4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 5. Simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities in the same area at any one time shall be limited and/or phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department in coordination with its construction contractors
Planning and Community
Environment Department
Prior to issuance of
grading permits and during construction
The environmental mitigation measures listed in column two below have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts. A completed and signed chart will indicate that each mitigation requirement has been complied with, and that City and state monitoring requirements have been fulfilled with respect to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 104
Page 2 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 7. Site access to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road, or as much as feasible, shall be treated with a compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, gravel, or other cover as feasible to reduce track-out. 8. Minimize the idling time for diesel-powered
construction equipment to two minutes provided such idling restrictions are consistent with manufacturer’s equipment specifications. 2. Construction equipment restrictions. The City shall apply
the following construction equipment restrictions to the proposed project: 1. Electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas equipment shall be employed instead of diesel powered equipment to the maximum extent feasible. 2. All construction equipment with a rated power-output of 25 horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Final Emission Standards for particulate matter. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV
emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB-verified diesel emission control strategy (e.g., oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM emissions to levels that meet Tier IV standards.
3. Prepare Construction Risk Reduction Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City and/or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Risk Reduction Plan for the project which: 1. Identifies the final planned construction phasing schedule and anticipated equipment operations. 2. Estimates the proposed project’s construction emissions based on the final phasing and equipment
plan. Any emission update shall be performed using the latest-recommended emissions estimator model recommended by the BAAQMD or other standard, acceptable methodology (e.g., contractor-specific fleet emission factors and estimates of equipment operating
hours). 3. Models the potential diesel particulate matter and total PM2.5 concentrations resulting from refined emissions estimates. Any modeling shall be performed
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 105
Page 3 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
using an accepted screening or refined dispersion-model recommended for use by the BAAQMD. The modeling shall focus on discrete, residential receptors located at and near the proposed project site. 4. Estimates potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to DPM. Risk estimates shall follow the latest recommendations of the BAAQMD. The goal of
the risk estimation shall be to identify the receptor(s) or areas of receptors where carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk thresholds may be exceeded. If risks are exceeded, the plan shall identify feasible on- and off-site measures to reduce risks to levels below
BAAQMD thresholds. On-site measures may include
the BAAQMD “Additional Construction Measures” and construction equipment restrictions included in Mitigation Measure 5-1, as well as phasing / activity restrictions. Off-site measures may include coordinating with all impacted receptors to replace and upgrade existing HVAC systems to provide high-performance panel filters capable of reducing potential modeled outdoor PM2.5 concentrations / risks to levels that are below BAAQMD thresholds.
4. Implement Off-Site Mitigation. In-lieu of preparing the Construction Risk Reduction Plan identified above, the City may, prior to the start of construction activities, coordinate directly with impacted residential receptors to
replace and upgrade existing residential HVAC systems with a high-performance panel filter with a rated minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) for particles in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 µm of 70% (presumed to be a minimum MERV-14), or equivalent system upgrade. This level of control would reduce risks to levels below current BAAQMD thresholds. Based on the results of the modeling conducted for the EIR, the City shall coordinate with residential receptors located in the area bound by Park Boulevard to the north, Ash Street to the south,
Sheridan Avenue to the east, and Sherman Avenue to the west.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 6-1: Potential Impacts on Nesting
Birds. The proposed PSB project is
intended to improve the natural environment on the project site with an extensive array of coordinated new landscaping and trees.
Mitigation 6-1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds and violation of State and federal laws pertaining to birds, all construction-related activities (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) should
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department in coordination with its construction
Director of Planning and Community Environment Department
Prior to issuance of construction related permits (including
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 106
Page 4 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
However, 38 existing trees are proposed to be removed. Without a proactive mitigation procedure in place, project construction could inadvertently result in the removal of trees containing nests or eggs of migratory birds, raptors, or bird species during the nesting season, which would be considered
an "unlawful take" under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and USFWS provisions protecting migratory and nesting birds (see Regulatory Setting above).
occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to February 1 or after August 31). If construction and construction noise occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to August 31), all suitable habitats
located within the project’s area of disturbance, including staging and storage areas plus a 150-foot buffer around these areas, shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for
the presence of active nests by a qualified biologist no more than five days before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization. If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active
nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented. If it is determined that birds are actively nesting within the survey area, the additional procedures below shall apply. Conversely, if the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds, the additional procedures shall not be required.
Additional Procedures. If pre-construction nesting bird
surveys result in the location of active nests, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) shall take place within
150 feet of nests, or as determined by a qualified biologist, until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring shall be required to insure compliance with the MBTA and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented.
contractors and biologist demolition, grading, and building permits) and during construction
Impact 6-2: Removal of Protected and
Street Trees. Because 6 protected trees and 5 street trees (those within street rights-
of-way) are proposed to be removed as part of the proposed PSB project, Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) Chapters 8.04 and 8.10 would apply to the project to require on-site tree
replacement or off-site replacement and mitigation in accordance with the standards
in the City’s Tree Technical Manual (Section 8.10.050(d)(2)). Without adequate replacement or other mitigation as set forth
Mitigation 6-2. Prior to removal of the protected trees and street trees, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit issued by the City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry
Division for the removal of any and all protected, designated, or street trees (referred to collectively as
“Regulated Trees”). In all cases, replacement trees would be required as a condition of the tree removal permit, and the project applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the City that there is no alternative that could preserve the tree(s) on-site. The project applicant must provide an evaluation and summary for any Regulated Tree (the collective term for any protected, designated, or street tree) proposed to be removed.
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department in
coordination with its construction contractor and the
City’s arborist
City of Palo Alto Planning and Community
Environment Department in coordination
Prior to removal of any protected trees
or street trees; during the planting and every two years thereafter until
trees are capable of surviving without further maintenance
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 107
Page 5 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
in the Tree Technical Manual, the project would be inconsistent with the Municipal Code tree protection provisions.
The applicant shall be required, in accordance with the Tree Protection and Management Regulations (PAMC 8.10) and Tree Technical Manual (PAMC 8.10.130), to replace the tree canopy for the six (6) protected trees and the five (5) street trees, in accordance with the tree canopy formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual (TTM,
3.20). If the tree canopy cannot be replaced on-site, the canopy shall be replaced off-site as close to the project site as feasible. If trees are being replaced off-site, the applicant must submit a Tree Planting Plan to the Urban
Forestry Division and obtain the Urban Forestry Division’s
approval of the plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The Tree Planting Plan must include:
The canopy calculation for trees removed and the number of trees planned to replace them, consistent with the formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual
The specific location where the new trees would be planted with specific baseline information about that
proposed site (e.g., surrounding vegetation or development)
The species of trees to be planted
Specific planting details (e.g., size of sapling, size of containers, irrigation plan)
Success criteria
Monitoring and maintenance schedule Replacement tree planting will be monitored by a qualified arborist. To verify the success of replacement trees, monitoring shall occur for two years after initial planting.
After the two-year period, the arborist will determine if the trees are capable of surviving without further maintenance.
CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
Impact 7-1: Potential Disturbance of
Archaeological or Paleontological
Resources. Project construction (e.g., excavation for underground parking and
Mitigation 7-1. In the event of the unanticipated discovery
of subsurface archaeological or paleontological resources during earth-moving operations, the following measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department in coordination with its
Planning and Community Environment Department
Prior to and during ground-disturbing activities
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 108
Page 6 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
utilities) could disturb existing unrecorded sensitive archaeological or paleontological resources at the PSB project site.
on these resources to a less-than-significant level:
Conduct Archaeological/ Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, and a professionally
qualified paleontologist, to conduct an Archaeological/ Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session will include a written handout and will focus on how to identify
archaeological and paleontological resources that may be encountered during earth-moving activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological and paleontological monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.
Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement
Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so
that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified
professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American
construction monitoring should be initiated. The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data
construction contractors and qualified archaeologist, qualified paleontologist and/or Native American
Tribal monitor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 109
Page 7 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
recovery excavations to address treatment of the resources, along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
Conduct Periodic Archaeological Resources Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities in All Sediments. The City shall retain a qualified
professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to determine if construction excavations have exposed,
or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological resources. After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological artifacts, construction monitoring for archaeological resources will be required. The City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets
the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g.,
grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological
resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist.
If subsurface paleontological resources are
encountered, excavation shall halt in the vicinity of the resources and a qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 110
Page 8 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by the qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a
reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall
be provided to a museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the lead agency, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.
Impact 7-2: Unanticipated Discovery of
Tribal Cultural Resources. Project construction activities (e.g., excavation)
could disturb as yet unidentified and/or unrecorded tribal cultural resources, including possible human remains.
Mitigation 7-2. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth-disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must
be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a
tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource
is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archaeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative.
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department in
coordination with its construction contractors, qualified archaeologist, and Native American
Representative
Planning and Community Environment
Department
During ground-disturbing activities
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 8-1: Geotechnical Hazards
Associated with Project Excavation and
Grading. The project's proposed excavation
Mitigation 8-1. As recommended by the project's preliminary geotechnical investigation, prior to City issuance of grading permits for individual project
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department in
City of Palo Alto Planning and Community
Prior to issuance of constructed
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 111
Page 9 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
and grading activities have the potential to create conditions that would potentially compromise the safety or stability of proposed project improvements. The preliminary site-specific geotechnical investigation (Romig Engineers, May 2016) made initial assessments of these
conditions, but a construction-level geotechnical investigation will be needed to adequately address all grading and excavation activities on the proposed Public Safety Building and California Avenue
Parking Garage (PSB project) site. Without such a detailed study--and without the associated supervision of an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer during project grading and construction--the safety and long-term stability of existing and proposed project improvements cannot be assured.
construction components, the City shall be required to retain a registered engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to prepare detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations to guide the construction of all project grading and excavation activities. The detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations shall be performed for each of the structures proposed for the
development site. Subsurface conditions shall be explored and laboratory tests conducted on selected soil samples to establish parameters for the design of excavations, foundations, shoring, and waterproofing. Recommendations from the investigations shall be
incorporated into all plans for project grading, excavation, soil support (both temporary and long-term), and utility construction, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The detailed, construction-level investigations, relevant recommendations, and all associated project grading, excavation and foundation plans, shall be subject to review and approval by an independent engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer retained by the City Engineer. In addition, the project civil engineer shall certify to the City
Engineer (e.g., through plan submittal for City review) that all relevant provisions of the investigations have been incorporated into the grading, excavation and construction plans, and all earthwork and site preparation shall be performed under the direct supervision of a registered
engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.
coordination with its geologist/ geotechnical engineer and civil engineer
Environment Department related permits and during grading and construction
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 10-1: Potential Project-Related
Exposure to Existing Soil or Groundwater
Contamination. Project-related excavation and construction activities could expose on-site construction personnel, employees, and members of the public to existing soil and
groundwater contamination.
Mitigation 10-1. Recommendations included in the Phase II ESA (Stantec, June 8, 2017) shall be implemented,
based on construction-level project plans when more specific and precise design and construction activities are formulated. The Phase II ESA recommends additional assessment of local and regional groundwater conditions
in advance of dewatering activities, combined with, as necessary, evaluation of pertinent and cost-effective water management strategies, including preparation of Site Management Plans. Likewise, the project must comply with the City’s standard dewatering requirements. This assessment and mitigation process shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department in coordination with its construction contractors and
engineer
Planning and Community
Environment Department
Prior to issuance of
grading permits and during grading and construction
NOISE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 112
Page 10 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
Impact 13-1: Project Construction Noise. Project construction would include site preparation, excavation and grading, utility trenching, construction of a new parking garage and public safety building, and application of architectural coatings. The noise levels generated by project construction would be in excess of 10 dB above ambient conditions at sensitive receptor locations for several hours a day for a period of approximately 16 to 21 months.
Mitigation 13-1. To reduce potential noise levels associated construction of the proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
Restrict work hours/equipment noise. All work shall be subject to the construction noise and time limits contained in City Municipal Code Chapter 9.10. Construction activities (including deliveries) shall only occur during the following time periods:
– 8 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday; and
– 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday Construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of these requirements in accordance with Section 9.10.060(c). The
sign shall also provide a name (or title) and phone number for an appropriate on-site and City representative to contact to submit a noise complaint.
Construction equipment care, siting, and design
measures. The following construction equipment care, siting, and design measures shall apply during construction activities:
– Heavy equipment engines shall be covered and exhaust pipes shall include a muffler in good working condition. Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the compressed air exhaust.
– All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive
receptor locations as practical. At a minimum, such shielding shall consist of a three-sided sound enclosure (with a full or partial roof) that provides for proper ventilation, equipment operation, and effective noise control. The enclosure should be
designed to achieve a 10 to 15 dB reduction in stationary equipment noise levels. The design of the enclosure shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure the enclosure will achieve a minimum 10 dB
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department in coordination with its construction contractors and qualified acoustical consultant
City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department
Prior to issuance of construction related (demolition, grading, building) permits and during construction related activities
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 113
Page 11 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
reduction in stationary equipment noise levels.
– The City shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary, diesel- or other alternatively-fueled power generators.
– No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.
Construction traffic. Construction truck traffic, including soil hauling, equipment deliveries, potential concrete deliveries, and other vendor deliveries shall follow designated delivery routes prepared for the project, which are anticipated to include travel on Oregon Expressway and Birch Road.
Construct/Install Temporary Noise Barrier: The City shall install and maintain throughout the duration of all site preparation, excavation, foundation construction,
and building construction activities, one or more physical noise barriers capable of achieving a minimum reduction in predicted construction noise levels of 15.5 dB. Potential barrier options would include:
– A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as K-Rail) along the project property line. Such a wall/barrier shall consist of material that have a minimum rated transmission loss value of 25.5 dB (or equivalent rating), and shall contain no gaps in the structure through which noise may pass.
– Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets installed along the project property line, building envelope or, if feasible and necessary, at or near sensitive residential receptor areas.
– Any combination of noise barriers and commercial
products capable of achieving a 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels at sensitive receptor locations.
– Prior to the start of the project, the City may prepare an acoustical analysis that reflects the final site plan, construction activities, equipment use and
duration, and refines potential construction noise reductions required for the project.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 114
Page 12 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
The final type, placement, and design of the project’s temporary noise barrier(s) shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure proper function and a minimum attenuation of 15.5 dBs in construction noise levels.
Prepare Project Construction Noise Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan for the project which:
– Identifies the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction-noise related issues.
– Contains a detailed construction schedule and predicted noise levels associated with construction activities.
– Includes procedures describing how the
construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction noise complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint.
Prepare Construction Noise Monitoring Plan. Prior to the start of construction, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Monitoring Plan which identifies:
– Construction activities, hours of operation, and predicted construction noise levels; and
– Construction noise monitoring locations, duration, and frequency.
The intent of the Construction Noise Monitoring Plan is to document updated ambient noise levels, monitor construction noise levels, and verify compliance with the noise reduction requirements in mitigation measure 13-1. If
monitoring indicates temporary noise barriers are not achieving a minimum 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels or otherwise indicates construction noise is
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 115
Page 13 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
resulting a 10 dB increase in noise levels above ambient conditions, the City shall increase the height, size (length or width), density, and/or amount of noise barriers installed such that attenuation requirements are achieved. The Construction Noise Monitoring Plan may be combined with and/or incorporated into the Construction Noise Complaint Plan described above.
Impact 13-2: Project Groundborne
Vibration Levels. Project construction
activities could generate perceptible groundborne vibration at adjacent buildings, including residential buildings, for a period of approximately 8 months.
Mitigation 13-2. To reduce potential groundborne vibration levels associated with construction of the
proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated
contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The City shall prohibit the use of large vibratory rollers (small plate compactors are acceptable) and vibratory pile driving equipment during construction. Any deep foundation piers or caissons shall be auger drilled.
Provide Notice to Adjacent Property Owners / Occupants. Five (5) days advanced written notice shall be provided to adjacent property owners and building occupants before commencing all drilling and significant earthmoving activities within 65 feet of
adjacent buildings. The notice shall provide the name (or title) and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-related concerns.
Prepare Vibration Mitigation Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Vibration Response Plan for the project which:
– Identifies the name and/or title and contact
information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-related issues.
– Contains a detailed schedule of drilling and substantial earth moving activities expected to occur within 65 feet of adjacent buildings.
– Includes procedures describing how the
construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a
City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department in coordination with its construction contractors
City of Palo Alto Planning and
Community Environment Department
Prior to issuance of
construction related (demolition, grading, building) permits and during construction activities
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 116
Page 14 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
minimum, upon receipt of a vibration complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the vibration source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by reducing groundborne vibration levels to less than 75 VdB and 0.04 in/sec PPV.
Such measures may include the use of non-impact drivers, use of rubber-tired equipment instead of track equipment, or other measures that limit annoyance from groundborne vibration levels.
Impact 13-3: Project Operational Noise. Noise generated by the parking garage
ventilation fans and the public safety building generator, fire pump, and heating and air conditioning equipment may exceed standards contained in the City Municipal Code unless shielding or other means of
attenuation is provided.
Mitigation 13-3. To reduce potential stationary source noise levels associated with the operation of the proposed
project, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
Site equipment away from residential areas. Garage
ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating and air conditioning equipment shall be located outside of setbacks and screened from view from residential areas.
Enclose and/or Shield Stationary Noise-Generating
Equipment. The City shall enclose, shield, baffle, or otherwise attenuate noise generated from garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating and air conditioning
equipment. The attenuation achieved through such enclosure, shielding, and/or baffling shall be sufficient to comply with Section 9.10.050(a) of the Municipal Code.
Prepare Acoustical Study. In accordance with Chapters 9.10 and 18.23 of the Municipal Code, the City shall have an acoustical analysis prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer that demonstrates:
– The proposed parking garage’s generator would
comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise
Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted).
– The proposed parking garage's ventilation fans would not result in a calculated Ldn of 63.0 at sensitive residential receptor locations.
City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department in coordination with its construction contractors and licensed acoustical
engineer
City of Palo Alto Planning and
Community Environment Department
Prior to issuance of
permits for noise generating equipment and prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 117
Page 15 MMRP – Exhibit A to PSB EIR Resolution
MONITORING
VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria)
Implementation
Entity
Monitoring and
Verification
Entity
Timing
Requirements
Signature
Date
– The proposed Public Safety Building fire pump, back-up generator, and heating and air conditioning equipment would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted) and would not result in a calculated increase of more than 3.0 dB Ldn at sensitive receptor locations.
The acoustical analysis shall be based on the final project design, reflect the actual equipment type and location at the project site, and the actual noise enclosure, shielding, or other attenuation measures included in the final project
design. If the acoustical study demonstrates the noise levels from these sources would be at or within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits, the City shall demonstrate through monitoring that the equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 01ECCD95-3E83-4328-9AFC-E861C40577A4 2.f
Packet Pg. 118
1
ACTION NO. 2018-06
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 350 SHERMAN
AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17PLN-00257
On June 11, 2018, the Council approved the proposed Public Parking Garage at 350
Sherman Avenue making the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”)
finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. On June 11, 2018, Council conducted a public hearing to consider:
(1) The Architectural Review application and approval recommendation by the Architectural
Review Board, for the Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue,
(2) The Ordinance to amend Public Facilities (PF) development standards and parking and loading
requirements recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission,
(3) The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) published for the Public Safety Building (PSB)
Project (the combined Public Safety Building and Public Parking Garage at 250 Sherman Avenue
and 350 Sherman Avenue, respectively), to respond to comments made on the Draft EIR published
January 8, 2018;
B. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted three public hearings on the Public
Parking Garage project; initially, the ARB reviewed the formal applications for the PSB project
(public parking garage and PSB) in October 2017; the ARB then reviewed the Draft EIR and public
parking garage project in a public hearing on January 18, 2018, and continued the garage review to
March 1, 2018;
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission, on January 31, 2018, reviewed the
Draft EIR and draft PF code amendments, and recommended approval of the Ordinance modifying
development standards and parking and loading standards within the PF zone in the Downtown
and California Avenue business districts for essential services facilities;
D. The ARB reviewed the project in a public hearing on March 1, 2018, reviewed the
architectural review approval findings and draft approval conditions, and recommended approval
of the proposed public parking garage by a vote of 4 to 1.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City of Palo Alto prepared an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the project in accordance with CEQA, which the City Council certified and
made related findings by Resolution No. 9772 on June 11, 2018, prior to approval of the decision
that is the subject of the RLUA.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 119
2
SECTION 3. PF Zone Code Amendments. (See Council ordinance 5445) The Planning
and Transportation Commission recommended modifications to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
Chapter 18.28 development and parking and loading standards for city parking structures and
essential services facilities within Public Facilities zoned sites within the Downtown and California
Avenue business districts.
SECTION 4. Architectural Review Findings. The design and architecture of the
proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required
in PAMC Chapter 18.76. The design and architecture of the proposed public parking garage
complies with the Six Findings for Architectural Review set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 18.76 Section 18.76.020.
AR Findings for Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue:
(1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant
design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:
With Council adoption of amendments to the Public Facilities development standards for
city parking garage, the project will comply with the land use and development standards
of the PF zone.
The following policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the
project:
o Policy T-5.6, strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and
explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all
types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping
where feasible,
o Policy T-5.7, require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and
bicycle safety,
o Policy T-5.8, promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce storm water runoff,
increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other
public locations. Encourage the use of photovoltaic panel or tree canopies in
parking lots or on top of parking structures to provide cover, consistent with the
Urban Forest Master Plan,
o Policy T-5.9, promote safety for pedestrians in City-owned parking lots by adopting
standards for landscaping, signage, walkways and lighting that reduce crime and
ensure a safe and orderly flow of traffic,
o Policy T-5.10, encourage the use of adaptive design strategies in new parking
facilities in order to facilitate reuse in the future if and when conditions warrant,
o Policy N-2.3, enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and
diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils
and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same and
discouraging the planting of invasive species,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 120
3
o Policy N-2.10, preserve and protect Regulated Trees on public and private
property…and related program N2.10.1 continue to require replacement of trees
including street trees lost to new development,
o Policy N-4.12, encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the
amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the
retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID
measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where
practical.
o Policy L-1.10, hold new development to the highest development standards in
order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development
with the least impacts,
o Policy L-4.2, encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all
Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or
that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping,
o Policy L-4.3, ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide
centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage
economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees,
kiosks, restrooms and public art,
o Policy L-4.8, maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California
Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center intermediate in
function and scale between the Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business
areas,
o Policy L-5.2, provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections
to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts,
o Policy L-5.3, design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and
consistent with the character of the area where they are located,
o Policy L-6.1, promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces,
o Policy L-6.3, encourage bird-friendly design,
o Policy L-6.6, design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote
personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of
community safety,
o Policy L-6.10, encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy efficient, and
appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. (no
signage proposed with this application),
o Policy L-8.2, provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art,
o Policy L-70, enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining street
trees,
o Policy L-8.4, create facilities for civic and intellectual life, such as better urban
spaces for civic programs and speakers, cultural, musical and artistic events,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 121
4
o Policy L-8.5, recognize public art … as a community benefit; encourage the
development of new public and private art and ensure such projects are compatible
with the character and identity of the neighborhood,
o Policy L-8.6, seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces,
open space and community gardens,
o Policy L-9.2, encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the
project, including locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or
by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to
surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still
maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking
to meet demand,
o Policy L-9.6, create…publicly accessible, shared outdoor gathering spaces within
walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods,
o Policy L-9.7 strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways,
including…entries to commercial districts,
o Policy L-9.8 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan into the
Comprehensive Plan by reference in order to assure that new land uses recognize
the many benefits of trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust
tree canopy throughout the city,
Related Program L-9.8.1, establish incentives to encourage native trees and
low water use plantings in new development throughout the city,
o Policy L-9.9, involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development
review,
o Policy L-9.11, design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures,
parking garages and parking lots, to meet high-quality urban design standards and
embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in
design of public infrastructure.
Related Program L9.11.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed
utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow
preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in
locations that will minimize their visual intrusion.
(2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
(2a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and
the general community; The project is consistent with Finding 2(a), given:
The right-of-way improvements will improve circulation; automobile ingress from/egress
onto Sherman Avenue are compatible with the design concept and functions, and the
location of bicycle racks near Jacaranda, closest to the walkable California Avenue, is
desirable;
The new facilities and amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles are an
improvement from the existing facilities as to safety and convenience;
Due to its lower pedestrian volumes, Sherman Avenue is the proposed location of the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 122
5
vehicular entry, established through detailed study of traffic movement; and
A potential future ingress/egress onto Jacaranda has been designed including provision of
structural support allowing for easy conversion of parking spaces to make way for
vehicular passage, should such future access be desirable.
(2b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to
the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant; The
project is consistent with Finding 2(b), given:
Trees #26 through #39 are located on Lot C-7 and trees #23, 24, and 25 are located on the
Birch Street median. There is only one Protected Tree on Lot C-7 (tree #35, a coast live
oak); there are two Street Trees within the planter cutouts along Sherman Avenue adjacent
to Lot C-7 (trees #36 and #37).
Although all existing on-site and street trees will be removed to allow for construction of
the garage, 18 new street trees in 24” to 36” box sizes (with post pavement support system
and necessary soil volume for long-term health and separation for utilities) are proposed
around the perimeter of the building on Sherman, Ash and Birch (plan sheet ARB AM04).
On Birch Street, four Chinese Elm trees are proposed to meet the priority attributes of
larger deciduous or semi-deciduous shade trees of less than 40 feet height and width to
create a gateway to California Avenue;
On Sherman Avenue, London Plane and California Sycamore trees are proposed in
alternation (total of nine trees) having a height of less than 50 feet and more open canopy;
On Ash Street, the narrower form of trees represented by potential species Silver Linden,
Cork Oak and Primrose Tree are proposed to address the south-facing orientation of the
façade (final selection of species by City’s Urban Forester); and
Plan sheet ARB AM05 provides technical details associated with the tree mitigation plan.
(2c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district; Finding
2c is not applicable since the PF zone does not impose context based design criteria.
(2d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and
land use designations; The project is consistent with Finding 2(d), given:
The materials and architectural forms are intended to be compatible with the mid-century
architecture of the area which includes:
o A four story building on the opposite corner (the County courthouse and jail
building), a mixed use (office-residential) building across Sherman, one- and two-
story commercial buildings fronting California Avenue, and multi-story residential
building(s) across Sherman.
(2e) enhances living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas;
There are no living units proposed on the site; the project is consistent with Finding 2(e),
wherever feasible, with limited lighting proposed facing the multiple family residential
building on Sherman Avenue, and with pedestrian friendly landscaping, lighting and
sidewalks to enhance residents’ experience walking to California Avenue.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 123
6
(3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that
are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area; the project is consistent with Finding 3,
given:
The materials were selected for durability;
The new structure’s materials and construction techniques are appropriate for the use;
Colors and textures will be compatible with nearby civic buildings and park landscaping;
A syncopated, compositional rhythm is achieved via these materials: terra cotta
sunshade, cementitious paneling, modified Portland cement plaster, and board-formed
concrete. The alternating flow of materials will diffuse the sense of an overall volume,
favoring a subtle shifting and overlap of surfaces.
(4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and
providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient
vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space
and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.); the project is consistent with Finding 4, given:
Ease of wayfinding is one of the garage’s key features:
o the primary pedestrian entry on the Birch Street side, a dramatic exterior
staircase, will animate the plaza side of the garage with pedestrian movement to
reinforce the plaza zone. As it opens towards California Avenue, the staircase
acknowledges the garage’s civic role in support of the retail environment.
o The secondary pedestrian entrance for the garage is appropriately at Ash Street.
The landscaped setback on the west side of Birch in front of the parking structure
accommodates seating and shade for individual passive activities
Ash St. pedestrian through-way has City-standard sidewalk width and raised planters.
Sherman Avenue, which does not experience as much pedestrian activity, has
appropriately been designed for quiet, passive shaded seating.
An arcade and deeper setback area is proposed at Jacaranda, to facilitate access to
Jacaranda Lane, with its low pedestrian-use and connection to California Avenue.
Low-level, focused pedestrian lighting will reinforce the intimate and small-scale
aspects of the plazas/streets, avoid light-pollution, and reinforce the civic character of
the facilities.
(5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings,
is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous
drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be
appropriately maintained; the project is consistent with Finding 5, given:
Each of the four frontages are unique with streetscape improvements tailored to each
street frontage to enhance the experience of coming to and from the garage.
Selected tree species will thrive in an urban environment, provide appropriate
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 124
7
architectural emphasis and scale on each of the three frontages, and have relatively low
maintenance and water requirements.
Birch Street receives raised planters with integral seating, an area of rain garden
planting, and additional native and shade-tolerant planting below the exterior stair.
Sherman Avenue receives a wider sidewalk allowing for street trees, rain garden
planters, and benches at the back of walk against the façade of the garage.
Vine plantings along the Jacaranda façade help green and soften this façade.
Pole lights and planter mounted landscape lights along Birch Street, Sherman Avenue
and Ash Street frontages, in addition to building mounted lighting, to provide safe and
attractive passage around the perimeter of the parking structure. The pedestrian pole
lights are coordinated with the standard light used on California Avenue.
(6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to
energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning; the
project is consistent with Finding #6 given:
Photovoltaic panels are proposed to provide shading, energy efficiency as a key
sustainable feature of the project.
Suitable street tree planting environments and storm water design features are key
features of the project.
SECTION 5. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval
is hereby granted for the Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue by the City Council
pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 6. Plan Approval.
Public Parking Garage.
The plans for the Public Parking Garage submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by RussDrulisCusenbery, consisting of 30
pages, received February 14, 2018, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in
Section 7. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community
Development.
SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval.
Impact Mitigation Measures Required for Both Project Components (250 and 350 Sherman)
Air Quality Mitigation 5-1. To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated
with PM2.5 emissions, including emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated
during project construction activities, the City and/or it’s designated contractors,
contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 125
8
1. Implement BAAQMD-recommended “Additional Construction Measures”. The City shall implement the following
BAAQMD recommended additional construction mitigation measures during construction activities: (1) All exposed
surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent, to be verified by
lab samples or moisture probe, (2) All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when
average winds speeds exceed 20 miles per hour, (3) Temporary wind breaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the
windward (generally the north / northwest) of actively disturbed areas of construction. The wind breaks should have at
maximum 50 percent air porosity, (4) Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast germinating native grass seed) shall be planted
in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established, (5) Simultaneous
occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities in the same area at any one time shall
be limited and/or phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time, (6) All trucks and equipment,
including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site, (7) Site access to a distance of 100 feet from the paved
road, or as much as feasible, shall be treated with a compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, gravel, or other cover as
feasible to reduce track-out, (8) Minimize the idling time for diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes
provided such idling restrictions are consistent with manufacturer’s equipment specifications.
2. Apply construction equipment restrictions. The City shall apply the following construction equipment restrictions to
the proposed project: (1) Electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas equipment shall be employed
instead of diesel powered equipment to the maximum extent feasible. (2) All construction equipment with a rated
power-output of 25 horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Final Emission Standards for
particulate matter. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV
emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB verified diesel emission
control strategy (e.g., oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM emissions to levels that
meet Tier IV standards.
3. Prepare Construction Risk Reduction Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City and/or its contractor
shall prepare a Construction Risk Reduction Plan for the project which: (1) Identifies the final planned construction
phasing schedule and anticipated equipment operations. (2) Estimates the proposed project’s construction emissions
based on the final phasing and equipment plan. Any emission update shall be performed using the latest recommended
emissions estimator model recommended by the BAAQMD or other standard, acceptable methodology (e.g.,
contractor-specific fleet emission factors and estimates of equipment operating hours). (3) Models the potential diesel
particulate matter and total PM2.5 concentrations resulting from refined emissions estimates. Any modeling shall be
performed using an accepted screening or refined dispersion model recommended for use by the BAAQMD. The
modeling shall focus on discrete, residential receptors located at and near the proposed project site. (4) Estimates
potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to DPM. Risk estimates shall follow the latest
recommendations of the BAAQMD. The goal of the risk estimation shall be to identify the receptor(s) or areas of
receptors where carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk thresholds may be exceeded. If risks are exceeded, the plan
shall identify feasible on- and off-site measures to reduce risks to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. On-site measures
may include the BAAQMD “Additional Construction Measures” and construction equipment restrictions included in
Mitigation Measure 5-1, as well as phasing / activity restrictions. Off-site measures may include coordinating with all
impacted receptors to replace and upgrade existing HVAC systems to provide high performance panel filters capable of
reducing potential modeled outdoor PM2.5 concentrations / risks to levels that are below BAAQMD thresholds.
4. Implement Off-Site Mitigation. In-lieu of preparing the Construction Risk Reduction Plan identified above, the City
may, prior to the start of construction activities, coordinate directly with impacted residential receptors to replace and
upgrade existing residential HVAC systems with a high-performance panel filter with a rated minimum efficiency
reporting value (MERV) for particles in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 µm of 70% (presumed to be a minimum MERV14), or
equivalent system upgrade. This level of control would reduce risks to levels below current BAAQMD thresholds. Based
on the results of the modeling conducted for the EIR, the City shall coordinate with residential receptors located in the
area bound by Park Boulevard to the north, Ash Street to the south Sheridan Avenue to the east, and Sherman Avenue
to the west.
Nesting Birds Mitigation 6-1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds and violation of State and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 126
9
federal laws pertaining to birds, all construction-related activities (including but not limited
to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation,
demolition, and grading) should occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to
February 1 or after August 31).
If construction and construction noise occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to August 31), all
suitable habitats located within the project’s area of disturbance, including staging and storage areas plus a 150-foot
buffer around these areas, shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the presence of active nests by a qualified
biologist no more than five days before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization.
If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active
nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the
nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented. If it is determined that birds are actively nesting within the survey
area, the additional procedures below shall apply. Conversely, if the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds,
the additional procedures shall not be required.
Additional Procedures. If pre-construction nesting bird surveys result in the location of active nests, no site disturbance
and mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing,
grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) shall take place within 150 feet of nests, or as
determined by a qualified biologist, until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring shall be required to insure compliance
with the MBTA and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be
documented.
Removal of Trees Mitigation 6-2. Prior to removal of the protected trees and street trees,
the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit issued by the City of Palo Alto Urban
Forestry Division for the removal of any and all protected, designated, or street trees
(referred to collectively as “Regulated Trees”). In all cases, replacement trees would be
required as a condition of the tree removal permit, and the project applicant must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that there is no alternative that could preserve
the tree(s) on-site.
The project applicant must provide an evaluation and summary for any Regulated Tree (the collective term for any
protected, designated, or street tree) proposed to be removed. The applicant shall be required, in accordance with the
Tree Protection and Management Regulations (PAMC 8.10) and Tree Technical Manual (PAMC 8.10.130), to replace the
tree canopy for the six (6) protected trees, in accordance with the tree canopy formula identified in the Tree Technical
Manual (TTM, 3.20). If the tree canopy cannot be replaced on-site, the canopy shall be replaced off-site as close to the
project site as feasible. If trees are being replaced off-site, the applicant must submit a Tree Planting Plan to the Urban
Forestry Division and obtain the Urban Forestry Division’s approval of the plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Tree Planting Plan must include:
(a) The canopy calculation for trees removed and the number of trees planned to replace them, consistent with the
formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual.
(b) The specific location where the new trees would be planted with specific baseline information about that proposed
site (e.g., surrounding vegetation or development).
(c) The species of trees to be planted.
(d) Specific planting details (e.g., size of sapling, size of containers, irrigation plan).
(e) Success criteria,
(f) Monitoring and maintenance schedule
(g) Replacement tree planting will be monitored by a qualified arborist.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 127
10
To verify the success of replacement trees, monitoring shall occur for two years after initial planting. After the two year
period, the arborist will determine if the trees are capable of surviving without further maintenance.
Archeo-Paleo Mitigation 7-1. In the event of the unanticipated discovery of subsurface
archaeological or paleontological resources during earth-moving operations, the following
measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts on these resources to
a less-than- significant level:
1. Conduct Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The City shall retain a
qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and
Standards, and a professionally qualified paleontologist, to conduct an Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity
Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session will include a
written handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological and paleontological resources that may be
encountered during earth-moving activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of
archaeological and paleontological monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist or
paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.
2. Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In
the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the ground-disturbing
activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of
at least 50 feet shall be established around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until a
qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall
be allowed to continue outside the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction
activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric,
Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring
should be initiated. The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of
the resources, along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
3. Conduct Periodic Archaeological Resources Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities in All Sediments.
The City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards, to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to
determine if construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified
archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed, or have a high
probability of exposing, archaeological artifacts, construction monitoring for archaeological resources will be required.
The City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a
professional archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g.,
grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may
require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and
grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial
fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-
time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist.
If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt in the vicinity of the resources and a
qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected
and processed by the qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and
collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed
from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall
be provided to a museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 128
11
itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage.
A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall
be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the lead agency, shall signify the completion of the program
to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.
Tribal Mitigation 7-2. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin
are identified during construction, all earth-disturbing work within the vicinity of the find
must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the
nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative,
based on the nature of the find, is consulted.
If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan
shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American
groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would
outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archaeologist and the appropriate Native
American tribal representative.
Geotech Mitigation 8-1. As recommended by the project's preliminary geotechnical
investigation, prior to City issuance of grading permits for individual project construction
components, the City shall be required to retain a registered engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer to prepare detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations to
guide the construction of all project grading and excavation activities.
The detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations shall be performed for each of the structures proposed for
the development site. Subsurface conditions shall be explored and laboratory tests conducted on selected soil samples
to establish parameters for the design of excavations, foundations, shoring, and waterproofing. Recommendations
from the investigations shall be incorporated into all plans for project grading, excavation, soil support (both temporary
and long-term), and utility construction, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The detailed, construction-level
investigations, relevant recommendations, and all associated project grading, excavation and foundation plans, shall be
subject to review and approval by an independent engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer retained by the City
Engineer. In addition, the project civil engineer shall certify to the City Engineer (e.g., through plan submittal for City
review) that all relevant provisions of the investigations have been incorporated into the grading, excavation and
construction plans, and all earthwork and site preparation shall be performed under the direct supervision of a
registered engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.
Contamination Mitigation 10-1. Recommendations included in the Phase II ESA
(Stantec, June 8, 2017) shall be implemented, based on construction level project plans
when more specific and precise design and construction activities are formulated. The
Phase II ESA recommends additional assessment of local and regional groundwater
conditions in advance of dewatering activities, combined with, as necessary, evaluation of
pertinent and cost effective water management strategies, including preparation of Site
Management Plans. Likewise, the project must comply with the City’s standard dewatering
requirements. This assessment and mitigation process shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
Noise Mitigation 13-1. To reduce potential noise levels associated construction of the
proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives,
or other appropriate personnel shall:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 129
12
Restrict work hours/equipment noise. All work shall be subject to the construction noise and time limits contained in
City Municipal Code Chapter 9.10. Construction activities (including deliveries) shall only occur during the following
time periods: – 8 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday; and – 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday. Construction activities shall be
prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction
site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of these requirements in accordance with Section
9.10.060(c). The sign shall also provide a name (or title) and phone number for an appropriate on-site and City
representative to contact to submit a noise complaint.
Construction equipment care, siting, and design measures. The following construction equipment care, siting, and
design measures shall apply during construction activities: – Heavy equipment engines shall be covered and exhaust
pipes shall include a muffler in good working condition. Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the
compressed air exhaust. – All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding
machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. At a minimum, such
shielding shall consist of a three-sided sound enclosure (with a full or partial roof) that provides for proper ventilation,
equipment operation, and effective noise control. The enclosure should be designed to achieve a 10 to 15 dB reduction
in stationary equipment noise levels. The design of the enclosure shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant
prior to installation to ensure the enclosure will achieve a minimum 10 dB reduction in stationary equipment noise
levels. – The City shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary, diesel- or other
alternatively-fueled power generators. – No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the
property line of the construction site.
Construction traffic. Construction truck traffic, including soil hauling, equipment deliveries, potential concrete
deliveries, and other vendor deliveries shall follow designated delivery routes prepared for the project, which are
anticipated to include travel on Oregon Expressway and Birch Road.
Construct/Install Temporary Noise Barrier: The City shall install and maintain throughout the duration of all site
preparation, excavation, foundation construction, and building construction activities, one or more physical noise
barriers capable of achieving a minimum reduction in predicted construction noise levels of 15.5 dB. Potential barrier
options would include: – A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-
grade, such as KRail) along the project property line. Such a wall/barrier shall consist of material that have a minimum
rated transmission loss value of 25.5 dB (or equivalent rating), and shall contain no gaps in the structure through which
noise may pass. – Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets installed
along the project property line, building envelope or, if feasible and necessary, at or near sensitive residential receptor
areas. – Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving a 15.5 dB reduction in
construction noise levels at sensitive receptor locations. – Prior to the start of the project, the City may prepare an
acoustical analysis that reflects the final site plan, construction activities, equipment use and duration, and refines
potential construction noise reductions required for the project. The final type, placement, and design of the project’s
temporary noise barrier(s) shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure proper
function and a minimum attenuation of 15.5 dBs in construction noise levels.
Prepare Project Construction Noise Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall
prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact
information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing
construction-noise related issues. Contains a detailed construction schedule and predicted noise levels associated with
construction activities. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and
resolve to construction noise complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the Contractor and/or City
representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the noise source generating the complaint,
determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint.
Prepare Construction Noise Monitoring Plan. Prior to the start of construction, the City or its contractor shall prepare a
Construction Noise Monitoring Plan which identifies: – Construction activities, hours of operation, and predicted
construction noise levels; and – Construction noise monitoring locations, duration, and frequency. The intent of the
Construction Noise Monitoring Plan is to document updated ambient noise levels, monitor construction noise levels,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 130
13
and verify compliance with the noise reduction requirements in mitigation measure 13-1. If monitoring indicates
temporary noise barriers are not achieving a minimum 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels or otherwise
indicates construction noise is resulting a 10 dB increase in noise levels above ambient conditions, the City shall
increase the height, size (length or width), density, and/or amount of noise barriers installed such that attenuation
requirements are achieved. The Construction Noise Monitoring Plan may be combined with and/or incorporated into
the Construction Noise Complaint Plan described above.
Vibrations Mitigation 13-2. To reduce potential groundborne vibration levels
associated with construction of the proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated
contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The City shall prohibit the use of large vibratory rollers (small plate compactors are
acceptable) and vibratory pile driving equipment during construction. Any deep foundation piers or caissons shall be
auger drilled.
Provide Notice to Adjacent Property Owners / Occupants. Five (5) days advanced written notice shall be provided to
adjacent property owners and building occupants before commencing all drilling and significant earthmoving activities
within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. The notice shall provide the name (or title) and contact information (including
phone number and email) of the Contractor and City representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-
related concerns.
Prepare Vibration Mitigation Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a
Construction Vibration Response Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact information
(including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction
vibration-related issues. – Contains a detailed schedule of drilling and substantial earth moving activities expected to
occur within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will
receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration
complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the vibration
source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by
reducing groundborne vibration levels to less than 75 VdB and 0.04 in/sec PPV. Such measures may include the use of
nonimpact drivers, use of rubber-tired equipment instead of track equipment, or other measures that limit annoyance
from groundborne vibration levels.
Operational Noise Mitigation 13-3. To reduce potential stationary source noise levels associated
with the operation of the proposed project, the City and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s
representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
Site equipment away from residential areas. Garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps,
and heating and air conditioning equipment shall be located outside of setbacks and screened from view from
residential areas.
Enclose and/or Shield Stationary Noise Generating Equipment. The City shall enclose, shield, baffle, or otherwise
attenuate noise generated from garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating
and air conditioning equipment. The attenuation achieved through such enclosure, shielding, and/or baffling shall be
sufficient to comply with Section 9.10.050(a) of the Municipal Code, which is estimated to be 78.2 dBA.
Prepare Acoustical Study. In accordance with Chapters 9.10 and 18.23 of the Municipal Code, the City shall have an
acoustical analysis prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer that demonstrates: – The proposed parking garage’s
generator would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted). – The
proposed parking garages ventilation fans would not result in a calculated Ldn of 63.0 at sensitive residential receptor
locations. – The proposed public safety building fire pump, back-up generator, and heating and air conditioning
equipment would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted) and
would not result in a calculated increase of more than 3.0 dB Ldn at sensitive receptor locations. The acoustical analysis
shall be based on the final project design, reflect the actual equipment type and location at the project site, and the
actual noise enclosure, shielding, or other attenuation measures included in the final project design. If the acoustical
study demonstrates the noise levels from these sources would be at or within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits,
the City shall demonstrate through monitoring that the equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 131
14
Approval Conditions for Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue
Planning
1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents received February
14, 2018, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
2. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this
project.
3. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review.
4. The City Council shall consider relocation of the transformer if possible to preserve the open area at the corner for
seating and other amenities as in the original plan.
5. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a
building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the AR
approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be
made prior to the one year expiration.
Transportation
1. DRIVEWAY WIDTH: The width of the driveway approach on the Sherman Avenue frontage shall match the
width of the connecting driveway within the garage. Plans show the driveway approach approximately ten feet
wider than the driveway in the garage, potentially aligning approaching motorists with walkways flanking
either side of the driveway.
2. MEDIAN SHORTENING: Civil site plans do not show any alterations to the existing Birch Street median on
the north side of the Birch Street and Sherdian Avenue intersection. As part of this project, the median shall be
shortened to provide a continuous accessible path of travel within the marked crosswalk at this intersection.
3. STREET LIGHTING: Ensure adequate roadway lighting is provided at the intersection of Birch Street and
Sheridan Avenue resulting from the required median shortening on the north side of the intersection. With the
shortened median, it appears an existing street light pole and twin luminaire assembly will need to be
removed. Replace the lighting in-kind or evaluate the adequacy of remaining illumination to determine if
replacement lighting is warranted based on roadway illumination standards for intersections within
commercial areas.
4. PARKING WAYFINDING & GARAGE SIGNAGE: Clearance bars, garage identity signage, legal signage, and
any other signage unrelated to parking regulatory signage associated with the CAMUTCD should match the
city’s Downtown parking wayfinding signage appearance and style. If, at a future date, a district-wide parking
wayfinding program is implemented for the California Avenue area which differs in appearance from the style
of the Downtown parking wayfinding signs, these signs can be easily replaced.
Building
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such
as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit,
Encroachment Permit, etc.:
1. Buildings with two or more stories above grade plane are required to be equipped throughout with
an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with CBC Section 903.3.1.1.
2. For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements are
required per PAMC 16.14.080. A completed Green Building Checklist “GB-1 Non-Residential
Mandatory Plus Tier 2” sheet is required for the building permit submittal package.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 132
15
3. City of Palo Alto has adopted CALGreen Mandatory +Tier 2 for new construction and requires that
12% to the total parking spaces shall be low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles.
(CALGreen A5.106.1.2)
4. The Palo Alto Municipal Code, PAMC section 16.14.130 requires new non-residential structures to
provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among
which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. In addition, where EV spaces
have been provided, the EV charging spaces shall comply with CBC 11B-228.3.2 and Table 11B-
228.3.2.1 for the minimum number of accessible EV spaces. The accessible EV charging spaces shall
comply with the technical requirements of CBC 11B-812.
5. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than
those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under
this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written
description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not,
unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed.
Public Works Engineering
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a
Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment
Permit, etc.:
1. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision
C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land
development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants,
retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square
feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm
water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source
controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public
Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution
prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and
permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from
a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system.
Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the
Building permit process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures
comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of
approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by
the City from the third-party reviewer prior to Building or Grading permit issuance. Within 45 days of the
installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit
for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s
permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings.
2. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the
pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls
or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-
level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow
preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line,
such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the
site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must
show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to
minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be
retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 133
16
3. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent
private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private
property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works.
4. DEWATERING: Proposed basement/underground garage excavation may require dewatering during
construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater
dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity
in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level;
if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals
for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal
requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp
5. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious
surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas
with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions
are available at the Development Center or on our website.
6. PAVEMENT: Sherman and Birch were recently resurfaced -- these streets are under a moratorium. Any cutting
into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan:
“Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Sherman, Birch and/or Park based the
roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing
of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced
as hatched on the site plan.
7. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control
measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to
guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The
maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to Building or Grading permit issuance. The City will inspect the
treatment measures yearly.
8. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public
Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center
and on our website.
9. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet
must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
Fire Department
1. Install a NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler, NFPA 14 Standpipe, NFPA 20 Fire Pump, NFPA 24 Underground Fire Service and
NFPA 72 Fire Alarm System. Fire pump is required to be located in a 1 hour fire rated room.
2. PV panel layout shall comply with the 2016 CBC section 503.2.1 # 2 & # 3.2-3.3.
3. The building is required to have an Emergency Responder Radio System installed per the 2016 CA Fire Code section
510 unless the property owner submits an evaluation report stating the system is not required.
4. The elevator must be sized to accommodate a gurney and two medical personnel.
Public Works Recycling
1. Allow space for the collection and storage of trash, recycling, and compost in the garage.
Utilities WGW
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 134
17
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building
Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.:
1. Update plans per WGW site plan red-lines and resubmit to other departments for review; no resubmittal to
WGW required unless utilities are impacted.
2. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application – load sheet per
unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service
demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall
provide the new total loads
3. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and
location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way.
4. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and
location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters,
backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any
other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles
showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct
banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the duct bank to verify cross
section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals
need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to
handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and
construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services.
6. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements
7. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing
and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and
directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead
free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
8. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system
to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive.
Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line,
within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans.
9. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added
demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be
performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
10. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall
have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 135
18
11. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW
utilities procedures.
12. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing
water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the
vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities,
Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may
not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas
or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new
trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters.
13. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas
& wastewater.
Utilities Electrical
1. Main electric panel shall be at grade and outdoor. The proposed design shall have the location of the main
electric panel.
2. The proposed building is two stories deep which might require long tie-back to reinforce the shoring walls.
Applicant shall work with Electric Utility prior to driving these tie-backs onto Jacaranda and part of Sherman
and Birch to avoid hitting the high voltage electric conduits. Applicant shall pot hole where close to these
conduits and electric equipment.
4. No tree drip-line near electric equipment (including conduits).
6. The point of electric power connection to feed the new building at 350 Sherman is one of the following: MH
1610 (manhole 1610), Vault 1609, LB3470 or SW 3469
8. The point of connection for fiber is a communication box near transformer 5264.
Public Works Water Quality (Stormwater Management)
1. A covered area for a dumpster would be preferable; the area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and
designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water run-on and runoff from the area. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10)
Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities [if trash area is shown, indicate that the shown area must meet these
requirements as well as the Zero Waste sizing requirements]
2. Submit and follow the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” construction BMP sheet during life of project with
the building permit set.
Before building permit approval, address these:
1. Use rain capture device at the demonstration garden and include description in interpretative signage.
2. Highly consider using rain chains or similar along vines and other walls/building corners.
3. Storm drain/drop inlets
Inlets should be labeled with a ‘Flows to Adobe Creek’ message.
4. Stormwater treatment measures
Consider using low-maintenance permeable pavers in the plaza to be part of the demonstration area.
Appropriate specs must be followed.
Installation vendor specs should be followed, though vendor specs should be reviewed by Parks Maintenance
Staff before installation. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City staff in pertinent
Departments (Public Works, Parks) before occupancy approval. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater
Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 to facilitate this agreement.
Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 136
19
Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here:
http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details
Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of
stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-
2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan.
Install an interpretive sign regarding stormwater treatment and pollution prevention. Contact Pam Boyle
Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this text.
5. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org)
Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials
Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines:
http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-
landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. Add this
bullet as a note to the building plans.
6. Stormwater quality protection
Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the
containers.
Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed).
Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping.
Establish a street sweeping maintenance plan in open parking lots. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater
Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this plan.
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building
Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.:
1. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites
to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that
either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds
state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water
may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code
(16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall
be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee
Schedule.
2. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water
Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. And
PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary
sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms
and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional
information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k)
3. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper
granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building
for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are
exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt,
provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 137
20
definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current
edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
4. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
(i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device
that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation.
(ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock
area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if
equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods
of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on
by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all
rainwater contacting the loading dock site.
5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
6. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming
in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where
alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater
plumbing.
7. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains
Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials,
hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment
cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and
equipment
8. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
SECTION 8. Indemnity.
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold
harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified
parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the
indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval
authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual
attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
SECTION 9. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be
valid for one year from the original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.77.090.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 138
21
PASSED: 8-0
AYES: Filseth, Fine, DuBois, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Wolbach
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: Tanaka
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue
Those plans prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery entitled ARB Submittal City of Palo Alto California
Ave Parking Garage 350 Sherman Ave, consisting of 36 pages, and received February 14, 2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 22B53D19-B70D-4E61-83CD-CD0F9F624197 2.g
Packet Pg. 139
ATTACHMENT H
Hardcopy plans to ARB Members and Libraries only
Project plans and the Environmental Impact Report can be reviewed at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/PublicSafetyBldg
and on Palo Alto Building Eye at this location:
https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2.h
Packet Pg. 140
ATTACHMENT F
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
250 Sherman Avenue
Public Safety Building
Table 1: COMPARISON OF PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PF DISTRICT)
Public Facilities
Regulation Required Existing Proposed
Minimum Site Area, width and
depth 250 Sherman
None
55,164 sf No change proposed
PF Zone Setbacks - Minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF zone shall be equal to the respective front,
side, and rear yards of the most restrictive abutting district, provided no yard adjoining a street shall be less
than 20 feet, and no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet – Council approved code amendment to allow
exceptions for essential services facilities and parking garages Downtown and Cal Ave District
PSB Front/Rear and Street
Side Yard Setbacks (SB)
Park
Birch
Sherman
20 feet except for
essential services
facilities and parking
garages in Downtown
and Cal Ave
NA Park: SB 21’9=8” above grade,
SB 0’ below grade;
Birch: SB 48’ above grade to
main building wall, 33’ to canopy
edge, and 25’ to base of ramp
cover, SB approx. 18’ below
grade
Sherman: SB 25’ above grade, SB
below grade near Sherman Av
PSB Interior Side Yard
Jacaranda Lane
10 feet except for
essential services
facilities and parking
garages in Downtown
and Cal Ave
NA Building SB is 20’ or greater (SB
range: 36’3” to 46’3” until
second jog in property line), SB
below grade is within 10 feet
CMU wall/Fence SB is 10’ until
employee garden where SB to
CMU wall is 3’2”’ for length of
40’ approx. wall height exceeds
four feet
PSB Site Coverage – based on
most restrictive adjacent
district (PF zone, which allows
30% coverage and 1:1 FAR)
30% NA 29.2% - complies
PSB - Max. Floor Area Ratio
(FAR);
1:1 NA 0.74:1 – complies
PSB - Max. Building Height;
SW corner is within 150’ of
residential RM-40 zone
35’ at SW corner of PSB
site within 150’ of
residential zone; 50’
elsewhere; PF code
requested to be
revised for emergency
telecom tower
NA 139’ emergency telecom tower
does not comply; elsewhere
height is 49 feet and complies
(PSB is not within 150’ of
residential zone)
Number of parking spaces Other uses not listed 155 public
spaces
162 spaces for PSB; Director
determines parking requirement
for use not listed
2.i
Packet Pg. 141
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: None.
Chair Furth: I call to order the June 7th meeting of the Architectural Review Board. Roll call, please.
Oral Communications
Chair Furth: Oral communications? This is the time for anybody who wishes to speak on a matter not on the agenda, to let us know. Seeing nobody and having no cards.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Furth: Anything requested?
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No true agenda changes. I just wanted everyone to know
that on June 21st, both Board Member Thompson and Board Member Lew will be out. I believe the three
other board members will be present, so we'll still have a quorum.
Chair Furth: Let's talk about that when we get to City official reports.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative
Future Agenda items.
Chair Furth: We have the transmittal of the ARB meeting schedule, attendance record, and tentative
future items, which is item 1. As you say, we'll be down to three people, we'll be missing two board members, and we have the downtown parking garage, which is not a desirable situation, to have an only partial board for that. Will we all be here on July 5th or the 28th?
Board Member Lew: If we do item first, I might be able to be here before I have to get to the airport.
Chair Furth: When do you have to go to the airport?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I would probably be there by 9:30, or something. It's a big item.
Chair Furth: It's a very big item.
Board Member Lew: It's a very big item, and if there's public testimony, or whatever, it may not work.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: June 7, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Furth: I really don't think we should be considering this with only three board members.
Board Member Thompson: I'll be present on July 5th.
Chair Furth: And I will, and Peter will. What about you two?
Board Member Lew: Did we decide to have a meeting on July 5th?
Chair Furth: We haven't decided.
Ms. Gerhardt: It did seem that everyone was going to be in town, so I believe we were going to have a
meeting. We do have a couple of items.
Board Member Lew: For staff, in the past, sometimes when we've had a July 5th meeting, we've had public criticism for doing that because they think of it as a holiday weekend. I think that's kind of a stretch, to me.
Chair Furth: It's Thursday.
Board Member Lew: It's Thursday, right. I can see if it was a Friday.
Chair Furth: That's a little decadent.
Board Member Lew: Uh, yeah.
Chair Furth: What about...? Robert, would you be able to be here on the 5th?
Board Member Gooyer: I could be here for either one. It doesn't matter to me.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. I would just need to check with the director and the rest of the City. I know that
they are on a time crunch.
Chair Furth: I know they are, but I think we're more likely to give you a recommendation if we have it on
a 5th than if we try to do it on the 21st.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. I will bring that up to the director.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. We know they're on a time schedule, we honor that, but I just think given how important this is to the City and how complex the decision is, and how much we need the wisdom of our colleagues, it would be better. All right.
Action Items
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
Chair Furth: Item 2 is a public hearing. It's quasi-judicial, so we should disclose any extramural
conversations. Thirty-nine forty-five El Camino Real. I will let planner Phillip Brennan describe the project.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Phillip Brennan, Project Planner: Good morning to Chair Furth and members of the Board. A quick
reminder that this is the second review of this project. This was originally heard back in April of this year.
At that time, the Board provided specific feedback to the applicant and the applicant has responded to
that. I just want to briefly go over how the applicant, the responses to those comments and guidance.
The Board provided direction, requesting that the applicant reduce the total number of materials and
enhance the street-facing side of the building. They mentioned the need to increase the street presence
of the lobby; increase seating options for pedestrians; utilize alternative tree species; and explore dedicated guest registration parking space alternatives. In response to that feedback, the applicant has reduced the number of material choices and enhanced the quality, utilizing higher-grade finishes, including Ipe siding carried through from the main building and lobby to the patio area, and Trespa panels. There is a materials board being passed around. Just this morning, though, the owner of the property brought an alternative sample for the Ipe siding. It's also a Trespa-type tile that has a wood
finish. According to the owner, this is a much more higher-grade material, more expensive material, and
that's their preference. The Board may want to consider that alternative. The design team has increased
the glazing along the second story lobby that's facing southbound El Camino to better signify the entry
and lobby area of the hotel. They are also proposing a metal awning to identify the front entrance into
the lobby. A new bench has been placed at the front entry of the lobby. Also, a new change that you may
not see in your hard copy plans but was included in a recent updated digital submittal, the applicant is
proposing a new bench to be placed under that entry, which is an ideal place. There is a loading space
area directly in front of the lobby on El Camino, and this is most likely going to be the ideal place where
shared-ride services and taxi services are going to be dropping off and picking up. I'm suggesting that the bench faces towards the southbound traffic so they can see the vehicles coming. As of right now, the applicant is proposing a stationary cement platform bench, but we'll leave it up to the Board to decide that detail. New native tree species have been proposed. One Pacific madrone is to be utilized, is to be the feature tree in the outdoor patio. Two Catalina Ironwood trees are to be located in the large stairwell
planters, and three California Sycamore trees in each of the parking island planters. At the last hearing, a
few of the board members expressed a desire to explore dedicated guest registration parking areas, and
the applicant has proposed three alternatives. They just included a third option recently that's not
included in their plans that I'll go over now. This first option, Option A, utilizes two existing parking
spaces as guest registration spaces. Those will be marked with a placard identifying it as a guest
registration space. It's located near the patio and directly adjacent to the lobby entrance. Option B is this
tandem parking orientation that places the guest registration spaces closer to the lobby. I did want to
bring up the fact that I did go over this with our fire department staff member, and he did confirm that
fire needs a 25-foot drive aisle for this type of parking lot orientation, which features 90-degree parking
spaces. This would be problematic in providing that. I think it's also an issue that the lobby is on the left side of the lot, so you have the potential of cars coming southbound on El Camino, cutting across the drive aisle to park there, or having to turn around and do a three-point turn to park in those spaces and utilize that space. Option C moves the ADA parking next to the stairwell, over. This makes a lot of sense because the two ADA ground-floor units are directly located in front of those spaces. We placed the guest
registration space closer to the lobby, and one of the guest registration spaces are located directly across
the lot. I did want to bring up again that just recently - six or seven months ago - a loading space,
approximately 30 feet long, a white loading space, has been provided on site, and that's directly located
in front of the main entry into the building. Again, this will likely be the ideal location for drop-off and
pick-up for shared ride services and taxis on El Camino. I also did some field reconnaissance to look at
some comparable hotels in the area to the Comfort Inn that were recently remodeled. My findings found
that hotels such as Zen and Creekside Inn have provided no dedicated guest parking spaces. The Nest
Hotel, which is just around the corner from the Comfort Inn, does have dedicated guest registration
spaces, as you can see in the picture on the left. That's in front of the patio, and from my understanding,
The Nest is actually the hotel that a lot of the design aspects have been modeled after for this hotel. It's
staff's opinion that to require the applicant to move the lobby structure or reduce the structure to accommodate some guest parking spaces is a bit cumbersome to the applicant. They have no desire to reduce the lobby size. This was initially proposed as an exterior remodel. We've already asked them to provide a notched-out front entry to accommodate the entry of the hotel facing out to El Camino, and it's
been expressed to me that to reduce the lobby to accommodate another guest parking space is a deal-
breaker for them. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed exterior remodel of the hotel based on
City of Palo Alto Page 4
findings, and as subject to conditions of approval. I'll leave it at that. If you have any questions, I'll be
happy to answer those.
Chair Furth: Are there any questions of staff? Hearing none, would the applicant care to make a
presentation? You have 10 minutes to do so, if you do.
Shawn Alexander: Good morning.
Chair Furth: Good morning. If you could spell your name for the record.
Mr. Alexander: Yes. I am Shawn Alexander. (Spells name.) I'm with AXIS/GFA Architects, and I am the architect for the project. Thanks for having us here this morning. Phillip, thank you very much for your presentation. I think you captured the essence of our design and what we've done to respond to the ARB. We are very happy to work with the ARB to get a design that you guys are happy with, that's fitting
for the community, and is something that our client, can be proud of. In regards to your questions at our
last meeting back in April, you asked us to take a look at making the entry more prominent, possibly
making a two-story lobby space more visible, add more glass. We've done that. We've added a canopy
over the entryway to make the entry more prominent. We've added bench seating for guests to wait for
Uber/Lyft ride services, and we've located that underneath so it has some degree of weather protection.
We've worked very close with planning staff to come up with design responses that meet the intent of
your comments from the last presentation. We've simplified materials. It's a building we're very proud of,
and we hope that you are happy with our design responses to your comments. I'm here to answer any of
your questions.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Admirably concise. Does anybody have questions of the applicant?
Board Member Thompson: Yes.
Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson.
Board Member Thompson: I was wondering if you could go through your elevation and denote exactly where all the materials are going.
Mr. Alexander: Sure. You've got the materials board, but we had originally proposed in your drawing
package that all of the brown colored materials on the lobby building and on the trash enclosure would
be an Ipe material. You have the sample there. Phillip had mentioned to you that the owner is actually
willing to upgrade that material to a Trespa product. It's a much more expensive material. And in the
upper portion of the building, we originally presented it as cement plaster. We've upgraded that material
to a Trespa, again, a much more...Yes, the white material. You have the white Trespa and the sort of
warm, mahogany-colored Trespa on the bottom that work together.
Board Member Thompson: Where does Wood 2 go?
Mr. Alexander: I'm sorry...?
Board Member Thompson: It's also in the key for your elevations, but I couldn't find it on the building.
Mr. Alexander: Forgive me, I'm not really sure where that was intended. My apologies.
Board Member Thompson: Are you saying it doesn't exist in the project?
Mr. Alexander: I don't believe it exists anymore in the project.
Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Thompson, what page are you on? Is it 9.3?
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, if you look at...
Mr. Alexander: Unless it's on the fence in the back of the property.
Mr. Brennan: It's actually identified here. If you go to A09.03, if you look at the lobby patio elevation, the
bottom elevation, you'll see "WD2."
Board Member Thompson: Okay, so is that structure...
Mr. Brennan: I'll let the architect...
Board Member Thompson: ...for the roof?
Mr. Brennan: It looks like the underside of the roof.
Mr. Alexander: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Brennan: Sure.
Mr. Alexander: Yeah, my apologies. That would be the stained roof material and the stained beams.
Vice Chair Baltay: Is that...? Well, I don't know if you're going to be able to answer. It looks like it's a
piece of redwood here. Is that correct? And this is fine vertical grain clear redwood?
Mr. Alexander: Yeah, you know, I'm not sure if it's going to be redwood. The hope is that it would be.
The intent is to try to get the coloration to match closely to the color of the Ipe, but it's up in an eve, it's
in shadows, it's not as prominent. You wouldn't build it from Ipe because you've got structural beams up
there. The exposed wood there would essentially be tongue and groove decking material.
Board Member Thompson: And is the intent of the paint color PT2 to match the Ipe color?
Mr. Alexander: You're referring to the color on the cement plaster columns and facia? Yeah. Our intent is
to try to get as close to the Trespa color or the Ipe color.
Vice Chair Baltay: And the stacked stone here - ST1? Forgive me, I'm just having a hard time seeing the numbers on the elevation. They're small.
Mr. Alexander: Yeah. The intent of the stacked stone at this point was to put it on, if you look at page 903...
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes.
Mr. Alexander: ...you can see next to the lobby entry that's back underneath the circulation, there's a
solid wall.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm sorry, I...
Mr. Alexander: To the left of the stair, and to the right of the lobby glass. Back underneath the circulation
from the deck above.
Vice Chair Baltay: These multiple colors of various tan on that piece of wall there is the stone?
Mr. Alexander: That's correct.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Vice Chair Baltay: Are there any other renderings of what that would look like from the edges, or
anything like that?
Mr. Alexander: I don't have any other renderings. Sorry.
Vice Chair Baltay: How do you end the wall when it sort of stops? You have a corner at 90 degrees. How
is that treated?
Mr. Alexander: We're going to trim the edge of the stone with some Ipe wood. That was our intent.
Vice Chair Baltay: Is there a design detail of that?
Mr. Alexander: I don't have a design detail for that, sir.
Vice Chair Baltay: How about for the Trespa siding you're proposing? Is this the proper dimension of the board? Are they long tiles to look like boards, or are they...?
Mr. Alexander: No, they're actually solid boards, sir.
Vice Chair Baltay: What are the dimensions and what are the details, again, of the edges.
Mr. Alexander: My apologies.
Vice Chair Baltay: It's okay. It's clear that we have a little bit of thinking to do on the details and the
finishes, still. Thank you.
Board Member Thompson: Okay, so the Ipe grain, there's sort of long, sort of linear slats. Are you saying
the Trespa would be like that, as well?
Mr. Alexander: The Trespa grain, the intent is that the grain would run horizontal, just like the wood
grain would be if it were Ipe.
Board Member Thompson: Sort of the same spacing, otherwise?
Mr. Alexander: My understanding is the owner wants to do the linear strips of Trespa as opposed to a larger solid panel.
Board Member Thompson: I see. Okay.
Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant or staff?
Vice Chair Baltay: Phillip, can I come back for a second to that third option on the parking arrangement?
Is there a drawing of that or something, aside from the slide you showed us?
Mr. Brennan: No, that's the only drawing I have for that.
Vice Chair Baltay: That's nothing that we can see except for the slide you showed us?
Chair Furth: Want to put it up again?
Mr. Brennan: Sure.
Chair Furth: Essentially, you moved over to the left.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, we did move some parking spaces over, so that's something that we would likely want
to bring back to subcommittee, if that's the option. Or, you could leave that to staff to make that detail
happen in the plan set, as well.
[Short pause]
Chair Furth: You moved the disability access spaces over, away from the lobby, and put the registration
space next to the lobby.
Mr. Alexander: That's correct.
Chair Furth: Just slide them down.
[Short pause.]
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Vice Chair Baltay: I guess, to the Chair. I would like to comment that all of us spent some time going to
the site, thinking about this, looking at it, and we respect that you want to come up with a last-minute
change that improves it, and it seems like it does. But it really disrespects our efforts by not letting us
have that drawing and have it a little bit ahead of time. When I was out at the site, it would have really
been nice to think about this option, as well. And yet, here we are, at the very last minute, being shown
a slide, and nothing else. It's difficult. Thank you.
Mr. Alexander: Member Baltay, I understand your concern there, and it's my apology that we weren't
able to provide that drawing to you beforehand. It was an option that was thought up at a last minute.
And worthy of showing the Board.
Chair Furth: All right. Okay. You may sit down, if you would like.
Mr. Alexander: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Alex, would you like to start?
Board Member Lew: I think the project is looking very handsome. I can recommend approval of the project today. I think there are a couple things that need to be followed up. One is the drawing is too light and really needs to be darker for the final, the microfilming and records. Two, I like the aesthetics of
the building a lot. It seems to me that you should have some details to give an indication that they're all
well-resolved, and I think Peter Baltay mentioned something like the stone and wood details. I was
thinking about that when I was looking through the set. Not every detail, not construction-level details,
just an indication of quality. On the guest parking, I don't have a strong preference. My take on the
parking is I think similar to staff's position. Most motels during the day, there's very little occupancy of
the spots, so it's not an issue. I do think it is an issue late at night. Somebody checking in late often will
find there aren't very many spaces, but I think that's part of the territory. I often check into motels really
late when I'm on a road trip. Usually if you park in the aisle, sometimes I'll do that, it's not an issue
because there isn't that much traffic at that time of day. And then, I also expect the motel to be full if I'm
checking in really late. It seems to me either A or C is fine with me. It seems like your Option C may interrupt some of the landscaping that you have between the parking and the building, but I think that's pretty minor. On the findings, I think on Finding #2 on page 11 of the packet, I think I might add - for staff - I think I might add that the aesthetics of the project complement the contemporary aesthetic of the Keys School next door. You know, the contemporary design of the shed roof, fairly modern eve
details, and what-not. That's all I have. I think the design is really great. I really applaud the architect
and the owners for doing this project. I think it looks nice. We have a lot of other motels in the
neighborhood who have done really nice things on the inside but haven't touched the outside that much.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
And I like that you've actually tried to make it, tried to integrate the interior and exterior together. Thank
you for that.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I like the advance on the outside. I think it's helped quite a bit. I'm still not
a fan of the whole entry, the way that works. I just think it's a really weak entry. It's hard to find. As far
as the parking, I think Option 1 and Option 3, they are viable, but I think you're going to have a hard
time finding those spaces. Option 2, I don't think is even a starter. I mean, I don't know why you threw that in. That's probably illegal the way it is, or doesn't meet code, and that was just useless. The one thing I would recommend that I thought would be a more viable one is to take your spaces - I think it's 27, 28 and 29 - that are 90-degree parking, turn those into two 60-degree parking spaces. So, you lose
one, but that way you've got a readily-accessible, right when you pull in, you see the two parking spaces
that are unique, which makes them unique to the entry, rather than just being one of the masses.
Because once you have a half-dozen cars parked in there, nobody is going to go, "Oh, those two standing
over there are for people registering." And, yes, it does lose a parking space, but I think in the long run,
it's a better solution to that. At this point, like I said, it's a big step forward. I like the material uses here
better than you had before, but I’m still on the fence at this point.
Chair Furth: Osma.
Board Member Thompson: Hi. Yeah, I would agree with Board Member Gooyer that this has come a nice
ways since last time. Looking at the materials, aesthetically, I think the Ipe, I think has a nicer presence
than the Trespa. So, if you're thinking about that, that would be my preference. At the same time, I think
the other two items that you've picked for Wood 2 and PT 2 don't match the Ipe just yet in terms of their shade. While the design intent is that you'd like to match it, it doesn't seem that way at the moment. I would encourage maybe finding a shade that matches your sample a bit closer. Also, in the findings, Finding #3 in the packet still talks about corrugated metal accents and aluminum...Yeah, there's sort of bold material choices in there. That would probably need to be updated. I do think it's come a long way,
it's true. The entry, I'm sort of struggling with. I think in the way that you've rendered it, it's sort of hard
to see exactly what's happening in terms of the change in plane. It does seem like a compressed entry.
Yeah, I think the bench that you've shown with the option, with the landscaping behind it, seems to
create more of a presence, potentially, but I'd be open to discussing that more with the Board. I could
come close. I could come close to recommending, but I think these material choices are really important,
so maybe looking at it again in subcommittee, or something. I'd be open to that.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, thank you very much, and thank you for your studies on the parking options. I
know I was the one who was pushing hard to get something close to the lobby, and I do admit, it doesn’t
work, what's shown. Option C, I think, is preferable. I share the comments and sentiments of my colleagues, especially Alex. I think the building looks very good. It's a big improvement in design and it will be a handsome addition on El Camino. I applaud you for making the effort to improve the exterior of your building. It's really good for the City to have that. That said, I'm finding the detailing and some of the questions we've been asking are just not satisfactorily resolved. I'm going to suggest that we put this
to a subcommittee to review some of the details and final material selections. I think it's a
straightforward matter to make the appropriate selections, but, I'm sorry, it's just not here right now.
There's just too many questions about how it is proposed. For example, if you're using Ipe siding, which
we've done on many projects, you might say it's a tongue-and-groove board where you're just looking for
a plainer surface with horizontal lines where the grooves are. If you're Trespa, it's typically set off a little
bit. The material expands slightly. And then, you see the edge of it, where it's clearly not wood. It's a
very different material even though the grain does match, and you have to treat it that way. It takes
some architectural effort. They're not just a like-for-like substitution. You have to design that material
differently to work, and I don't think any of us are seeing that resolution here. I'm open to either material, personally, although I do caution you that Ipe is very difficult to maintain. Within a year, every
City of Palo Alto Page 9
year, it will need to be refinished. It's such a dense wood. It's not typically used for this application for
that reason. It's also not inexpensive. I'm going to propose to my colleagues, though, that...Actually,
first, there's two design elements that are more than materials that I find troublesome. One of them, if
you look at Sheet A12.02, the upper right-hand corner perspective, this is the corner post of the new
entry where you have glass all around the corner. I understand that you want a structural column there.
I find it really awkward to have the two materials just sort of, the wood stopping half way up, and then
the white Trespa there. On a small, narrow member like that, I would like to think there's another way to detail how that transition is made, or indeed, if you don't just have the white post come all the way down. Or, maybe you have a different post, a round column painted a different color. Some design effort, because here, it just doesn't quite work, in my opinion. We'll see if my colleagues agree, but again, that upper-right perspective on A12.02, where that column is. The second thing I've compared is, on Sheet A00.07, the trash enclosure roof eve is treated differently than it was in a previous submittal, in that it
doesn't really have much of an overhang. Whereas, the previous submittal had a slightly larger overhang,
which I found much more appealing. I'd like to see that resolved. I'll pass this down to my colleagues so
they can see the previous submittal. Those are the two very small design issues that you might just think
through once more. Then, I was going to suggest that we ask for, just to be precise, details of the Ipe
and Trespa siding, details of how the stone veneer is applied, details of the trash enclosure roof, details
of the soffit, the piece outside the front door. You're showing a very attractive metal finish, top-and-
bottom thing, and that would look very nice if it's properly detailed that way. So, some resolution on that.
I suppose a detail of the overall roof eve. Alex is correct that you want to be really responding to the
building next door. It's all about the details. It's not hard to do, but draw it out, put it there so the contractors build it that way, and the staff has something. And, lastly, this entry corner post. That's some of my comments. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I'm prepared to vote to approve this and make the findings. I thank you all for your...I thank Alex and Osma for their comments on the finding changes that we should have. I like the
bench under the eve, but I don't think you should eliminate the bench along the sidewalk. The south El
Camino guidelines talk about seating for the public, as well as the users, tenants, occupants of this
building. I'd like at least one of those benches - and I think it's up to the applicant which one - to have
arms so that people who don't stand up easily can get up out of the bench. I think a back is probably not
quite as important, but these should be benches that people with varying degrees of strength can use.
And I feel strongly that there should be two of them. This is a pedestrian loading zone, is that right?
That's been established on the street?
Mr. Brennan: Correct.
Chair Furth: Those are interesting. I didn't know they existed. That would certainly be helpful here. I'm
so pleased that you're planning to redo this building in this style. I think it will look much better, much more attractive as a place to be. I, too, check into a lot of motels sort of late. I really like having a dedicated parking space by the office, so I strongly favor Option C. I don't care if there's one or two, but I think it needs to have one. I propose that we recommend approval with a referral to subcommittee to deal with the design details that you all have mentioned. That's my point of view on this. Basically, thank
you very much. This is going to be a much more attractive building on the street, and I trust that it will
be good for business, too. Would anybody care to make a motion?
MOTION
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm gearing up to do that, if that's okay. I move that we recommend approval of this
project to the director, with Option C for the parking. And then, we would like to see it come back to
subcommittee, specifically to see details of the Ipe and Trespa siding. That's the material and
configuration. Details of the stone veneer. That's the configuration on the sides. Details of the trash
enclosure eve. Details of the soffits at the entry area. Details of the roof eve at the top of the building on
El Camino. Details of the entry corner post, I'm calling it. And, lastly, details of benches, showing a minimum of two benches outside.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chair Furth: Is there a second.
Board Member Thompson: I can...
Board Member Lew: I will second.
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, go ahead.
Chair Furth: Osma, would you care to be recognized?
Board Member Thompson: Could I add to that list, I guess this would be a friendly amendment?
Ms. Gerhardt: Can we make the second, first, and then do a friendly amendment?
Board Member Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Furth: I think we have a second from Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I seconded, and I will entertain an amendment.
Board Member Thompson: To add alternate shades for PT 2 and Wood 2 stain to better match either the
Trespa or the Ipe.
Vice Chair Baltay: Absolutely.
Board Member Lew: I would accept that.
Chair Furth: Okay, the friendly amendment is accepted. Anything else before we vote?
Board Member Thompson: I also want to add a comment. Is it too soon? To add a comment, just on the
entry post item?
Chair Furth: Go ahead.
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I agree with Board Member Baltay that that entry post could use some
more design refinement in terms of how it's detailed.
Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye? Opposed, none.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
Chair Furth: Who would like to serve on the subcommittee? Don't all wake up at once.
Vice Chair Baltay: I would.
Board Member Thompson: I would.
Chair Furth: All right. This will be your subcommittee, Board Members Thompson and Baltay.
Congratulations on getting through another step in the Palo Alto process. We look forward to seeing your
project built. Thank you. We will take a five-minute break while you set up for the next item.
[The Board took a short break.]
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4115 El Camino Real (17PLN-00280):
Consideration of a Major Architectural Review of a Proposed Three-Story, 16,726
City of Palo Alto Page 11
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.
Chair Furth: All right, we have a second public hearing. It's item 3 on our agenda. The address is 4115 El Camino Real, a seven residential unit mixed-use proposal on the El Camino Way island. I will let staff describe it in more detail. Could you remind me if these are condominiums or rental units?
Phillip Brennan, Project Planner: These are going to be condo units.
Chair Furth: Which is why we have a BMR unit.
Mr. Brennan: Yes.
Chair Furth: A below market rate unit. Thank you.
Mr. Brennan: Thank you. A quick reminder, again. This project had a preliminary hearing back in June of
2017, so this is the first formal hearing of this project. A quick overview. The project is a mixed-used
development offering retail, office and residential, nearly 7,800 square feet of retail and office space,
nearly 9,000 square feet of residential, and a 14,000 square foot subgrade parking garage. The proposal
includes seven residential units, including one BMR unit. This is a housing inventory site. The realistic
capacity is seven units, and that is what the applicant is providing. This mixed-use project is provided a
one-to-one FAR, with 50 percent FAR for residential and 50 percent for commercial. Plus, a density bonus
for the BMR unit that provides an additional 1,030 square feet for that BMR unit. The area context. This site is located in the Triangle Area in the Ventura neighborhood. This Triangle Area District Vision proposes a well-designed, compact and vital multi-neighborhood center. It's centrally located close to Gunn, Terman and Briones schools, as well as Keys, close to Briones and Robles park, and near Barron Park and Charleston Meadow, Green Acres neighborhoods. This Triangle development is comprised
primarily of commercial, retail and mixed-use buildings. Some site context. This is looking at the El
Camino Real frontage. These buildings...The pictures aren't necessarily to scale, but the dimensions of
the adjacent buildings at 4113 and 4117 are accurate per our approved plans. The building is being
proposed at 39 feet, 5 3/4 inches. The maximum height is 42 feet and six inches, as permitted to allow
for the mechanical equipment. The lot abuts a vacant one-story retail space directly to the east. I believe
that property belongs to Fuki Sushi and it serves as default parking space for the restaurant. And 4113 is
the HoneyBaked Ham building. This is the frontage along El Camino Way. As you can see here, it
primarily serves - the visual at least - parking lots to serve the two restaurants, or actually, the three
existing restaurants. The subject site is, you know, it fronts East Meadow, and it is a major visual site,
and is vital for development along this way. The proposed design. The feedback was provided to the applicant at the preliminary hearing. In this case, the ARB provided feedback regarding the large, screened, third-story private deck along El Camino Real, stating it visually increased the building's volume. The applicant has responded by removing some of those supporting beams and replacing it with a glass rail system. I'm hoping you can see that in the pictures and the arrows directing your eyes. The
Board also mentioned that the beams and columns add unnecessary mass to the building, particularly
along El Camino Way. The applicant has removed the screening features and supporting beams and
replaced it, again, with the glass railing system. And, just to summarize the net effect, the profile of the
building has been modified. You can see with the removal of the beams and columns and the screening
that the building is now, the residential floor along the third level is more tiered, or at least gives the
appearance of being more scaled back and tiered, as well as the front-facing along El Camino Real, to a
lesser degree. The Board made comments regarding softening the frontage along El Camino Way. The
previous design featured driveway located toward the right side and a large paved area to serve the
garage spaces in the original design. The applicant is maintaining the centrally-located driveway that's currently there and provided ample open space areas for public seating close to the right-of-way, as well
City of Palo Alto Page 12
as an open space area and amenity area for the tenants located on the right side of the property. There's
only three service level parking spaces and those spaces are...Excuse me, there's seven service level
parking spaces but only three uncovered spaces, which are screened, in large part, by the proposed
landscaping. The project is generally compliant with all of the required development standards and
design guidelines, but staff is requesting the Board consider how the street scape façade, if it's cohesive
and consistent in terms of a base, body and roof, per South El Camino Real design guidelines; whether
the primary entry signifies the location and expresses importance; and, the compatibility of the residential units with the overall building design and neighboring tenant units. No formal action is being requested. Staff is recommending the Board provide direction regarding the project's overall design and consistency with the applicable design guidelines and continue the project to a date uncertain.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Oh, we should mention that we did have a
communication from Jeff Levinsky...
Mr. Brennan: Yes, I'm sorry.
Chair Furth: ...concerning the calculation of parking ratios. I printed it out somewhere; now, I've
misplaced it. And square footage. I think it was...
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, there's five items in the email, two regarding TDM. It does say in the second item that
the request to get a copy of the TDM was denied. It is still in the admin phases right now. That's the only
reason we would have denied such a request.
Chair Furth: It's not a public record yet.
Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. So, number 3 is talking about limited street parking; 4 is unsecured residential
parking; and 5 is the retail preservation. We haven't had a chance to go over these in quite detail yet, but we certainly will before we come back for another hearing.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Give this back. All right. Anything else before we have our public hearing? And we have a speaker card. All right. If the applicant would care to make a presentation, you have 10 minutes to do so.
Jeff Potts, SDG Architects: Thank you. Good morning, Jeff Potts, SDG Architects...
Chair Furth: Excuse me, I've got to ask you to spell your name for our transcriber.
Mr. Potts: No problem. [Spell name.]
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Potts: I want to thank Phillip and Jodie for their extensive work on this project thus far, and I'm sure
we have some more to do. I'll be brief. Phillip covered most of what we were going to cover in here. The
site plan orientation to El Camino Real and El Camino Way, you know, the main difficulty in the design is
that El Camino Real is at an angle to El Camino Way, so our main frontage on El Camino Real is angled to
that frontage. From that side, we have a connection of a breezeway that enters the main stair for the
residents and the office above, and then, we have the retail openings right out onto El Camino Real, with the widened 12-foot sidewalk there. One of the main features of the design was this breezeway that maintains a connection between El Camino Way and El Camino Real for a pedestrian connection, access from the neighborhoods to schools and such. That was a strong element of the design. Based on previous comments and working with the City, the driveway location for those rear parking spaces was
moved to align with the street across the way for a better visual connection and site lines in and out of
the project. When we did that, knowing it was a strong view down that street, we flanked that driveway
with large planting areas, one just for some trees for screening at the more northern side, ...and at the
southern side we created a landscaped area with some heavy planting and some planters, but also a
City of Palo Alto Page 13
seating area accessible to the public along El Camino Way. There's a significant bike path that's being
updated through there, so we created a stopping point along that bike path. Then, on the more southern
side is a common open space for the tenants. Based on those open spaces, we exceed the open space
requirement by four times. In addition, we have very large decks on each of the units. The main
vehicular access for the retail and office is off El Camino, with the residential access off El Camino Way.
That will keep limited traffic on the El Camino Way side and bring most of the traffic in from El Camino.
Quickly, again, the subgrade garage with 31 parking spaces. Those will be serving the retail and office and residential guest spaces. On the first floor we have a little over 4,600 square foot retail space. That's the useable retail space for the replacement. That's the existing retail minus the first-floor circulation, and that's the open, useable space. We have the four garage spaces that will be accessed off of El Camino Way. Those will have glass doors and awnings over each space. And then, we have three at-grade parking spaces, the circulation tower, and we have a large bike storage and shower space on that first
floor for the employees of the retail and commercial. And then, our main circulation access is at that
level. On the second level we have about a 2,300 square foot useable office space, along with the
circulation for the four residential units that are located at that level. That's a combination of one- and
two-bedroom units, and the affordable unit will be the two-bedroom unit located adjacent to the elevator
and circulation core there. Again, each of those units has a large useable, private deck. We did reduce a
lot of the screening and the spines that we had on the previous design and kept it only where it was
really necessary to give us some delineation between the neighboring decks. On the third floor there are
three units, the larger three-bedroom units, and then, another two-bedroom unit that is basically exactly
the same as the affordable unit, just stacked on top. Again, each of those has a very large deck. And then, based on comments from the previous preliminary ARB, more of a public kind of space deck there with some landscaping that will be maintained and give that corner a nice landscaped feel on the third floor. Elevationally, we've carried the articulation and details around to all sides of this building. It is a mix of wood and stucco. The wood, as you see there, is a product called Kebony, which is a treated pine
product. It weathers like it's Ipe, but it's more sustainable and more workable. You can either let it sort of
patina to a kind of gray, or you can maintain it in its darker form, which would be our intention. We also
added some metal awning details along the El Camino retail frontage to bring that scale down along the
street a little bit, per previous comments, and stepped back that third floor and removed, again, the
screening in that area. We've kept the screening between some of the decks and along the ramp access
to the garage. Quickly, Phillip basically showed you these slides, but we just wanted to give you a side-
by-side comparison, again, of the revisions that we've made. Along the front, again, removing that third-
floor screening and that roof element that really came out proud to the street. We revised the office
areas where the wood windows were. It was suggested that we bring the sills up on those, which we did,
and revised that deck to have a glass railing, to make those wood elements kind of stand out a little bit more as individual elements, again, removing some of the overhanging beam features and some of the screening, creating that more landscaped area on the upper right of the building as you see it on the upper right slide. Along the rear, again, I think the statement was that it was maybe a little too industrial/commercial feeling, and it should feel a little more residential on the rear. The first biggest
thing was obviously the change in the location of the access and the garages at that level, based on
transportation and engineering comments, as well. Also, removing the bulk of the metal screening that
was on the lower level and removing the bulk of the spines that were dividing up the building on the
upper floors. What we did is tried to open those up. We kept those spines where we needed them to
delineate those decks again, but then we tried to open up the corners of the building, as well. If you look
at the lower two images, you can kind of feel that stepping back at that corner a little more there. And
then, we added a little more wood detailing along the back and revised the window systems to be a more
residential feeling portion and amount of glazing along that back element there. With that, we are here to
answer any questions you have, and get your feedback. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant before we hear from the public?
Board Member Thompson: I have one.
Chair Furth: Keep them brief.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Board Member Thompson: I just have one question. Is there no access to the retail on the back side,
from El Camino Way? I didn't see access. I just wanted to confirm.
Mr. Potts: The site has this large breezeway that goes right through the building, so you can walk, or
walk a bike, or whatever, from El Camino Way to El Camino. The doors for the retail would then be on El
Camino. The intention is that people maybe even not using the site will use that access, as the rest of the
block develops and potentially becomes closed off, will use that access to get from one side to the other.
Board Member Thompson: Okay, that's the only --
Mr. Potts: You will have access. Yeah.
Board Member Thompson: Okay, got it. Thanks.
Chair Furth: Anybody else? All right, thank you. I'm sure we'll talk to you more. Robert Moss. I appreciate the use of a return address sticker, which I can read.
Mr. Moss: Thank you, Chairman Furth and Commissioners. This is a site I'm very familiar with. We've
been using the restaurant for decades and we're going to be sorry to see it leave. I have three issues
with the current proposal. The first one is parking. I kind of wonder if there is adequate parking. I think
it's a little bit under-parked, especially when we have guests coming to the residential units, which is
going to spill over parking onto El Camino Way and Meadow. There are several times a year when the
store next door...
Chair Furth: HoneyBaked Ham?
Mr. Moss: Yeah, that.
Chair Furth: Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter.
Mr. Moss: It just gets loaded with people around Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas, and the people are
lined down the sidewalk, half way down El Camino Way. They're parked all over the place. If you don't have enough parking on this site, where are they going to park? That's a problem. The second is the design. I don't really care for those dark colors on the upper levels. It makes the building look top-heavy. I'd rather see those dark colors in the lower floors and have the top floors a light color. The third issue I have is landscaping along El Camino. I think we need a lot of trees along there and maybe some planters
in front of the building to make the entire area look more rural and be more complied with the El Camino
design guidelines, which is for a lot of planting along El Camino. There's very little in this proposal, so I'd
like to see a lot more planting of trees, bushes, landscaping along the building, so that we have more of
an environment that's welcoming, rather than something that's stark. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Moss. Anybody else? It's always good to have a member of the public
participate. I think we feel better about the work we do when you do. All right. Questions of staff?
Questions of anybody? Yes, Alex.
Board Member Lew: I wanted to follow up on Mr. Moss's comment about guest parking. For staff, my
recollection is that the state...We're at 9519, the density bonus, is that if you have below-market-rate
units, guest parking is not required. I was wondering if you could explain that for me.
Mr. Brennan: That's correct. Guest parking and ADA parking is inclusive of the modified parking ratio by right. That's confirmed with our city attorney.
Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word of what you just said. Take me through it. There are
seven units. One of them is a below-market-rate unit.
Mr. Brennan: Correct.
Chair Furth: This means that the project is entitled to certain...
Mr. Brennan: Concessions and incentives.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Chair Furth: ...concessions from zoning in order to support the affordable housing.
Mr. Brennan: Right. One of...
Chair Furth: What are the base requirements, and how are they modified, and where do we end up?
Mr. Brennan: Sure. By our standard parking ratios and requirements, the project is required to provide 51
parking spaces.
Chair Furth: I just want to hear about the housing part.
Mr. Brennan: Okay. The applicant is providing a BMR unit. The BMR, by providing that, they are afforded
certain concessions and incentives, one of which is a "by-right" modified parking ratio, which reduces the required parking for residential by four spaces.
Chair Furth: So, this applies not just to the parking needed for the below-market-rate unit, but for all the parking for the residential uses.
Mr. Brennan: That's correct. For all units.
Chair Furth: Because you're aren't going to require four spaces for the BMR unit.
Mr. Brennan: No.
Chair Furth: We end up with how many spaces for residential?
Mr. Brennan: Seven spaces. Excuse me, 11 spaces.
Chair Furth: That's one space per unit, plus four.
Mr. Brennan: Right.
Chair Furth: All right. These are not unbundled. Besides, they're going to be bought. Okay. And then, in
addition to the parking reduction because of the below-market-rate unit, the applicant is asking for
parking reductions for the non-residential portion of the building. Can you take me through that?
Mr. Brennan: Correct. Really quickly. Again, they were required 51 spaces. You reduce that number by four due to the BMR or the concession by right.
Chair Furth: That reduction also applies to the non-residential spaces?
Mr. Brennan: Well, the total parking for the site.
Chair Furth: Oh, you're not splitting it. All right.
Mr. Brennan: Yeah. So, 47 spaces are required. The applicant is providing eight. They are asking for a 20
percent parking reduction, which is effectively nine spaces. I can repeat that if you want me to.
Chair Furth: (Inaudible)
Mr. Brennan: The breakdown is on page 53, I believe, too.
Chair Furth: Right. My point is that in addition to the...Am I still right in thinking that in addition to the
reduction in spaces allocable to the - the applicant is nodding - residential parts of the development, they
are requesting from the City a further reduction in total number of spaces provided with respect to the
non-residential property and supporting their argument with a proposed transportation demand
management program, both for the retail space and the office space. Is that true? They are nodding.
Mr. Brennan: That's correct, yeah.
Chair Furth: Thanks. Alex.
Board Member Lew: For staff, just to continue that question. I understand the parking reduction is at the discretion of the director, not the board. I was wondering if you could explain the principles behind the
City of Palo Alto Page 16
20 percent parking reduction. I know one element is (inaudible) transit. Sometimes I've heard the
argument that there's potential for shared parking, so if you have a mixed-use building, some of those
can be shared, depending on the time of day. Right? I mean, as people are at work, why have this
parking spot left empty for eight hours in the middle of the day? The other is the TDM. Is there a ratio
that staff is thinking about that adds up to 20 percent?
Ms. Gerhardt: There are director's adjustments, as you stated, that can be done to parking. There is the
shared version, which is between office, retail and housing units, and there's also the TDM version, which
is when you're offering, maybe train passes or bus passes, or something similar. I do want to make clear, though, that this request is not approved at this point. It's still under review. We're happy to take any questions that you have, but this has not been finalized in the director's mind quite yet.
Board Member Lew: Thank you for that.
Chair Furth: Any other questions before we start commenting? Okay. I had one question. When the chair
and I met with staff yesterday, you mentioned that there might be some concern from the building
department about the breezeway. Could you tell me about that?
Mr. Brennan: Correct. Building and Fire made mention of their concern regarding the units we proposed
ingress and egress point, point of access in the circulation island. And when I say "circulation island," I
mean the space that provides the elevator and stairwells to the building. That was existing out into that
breezeway. They have certain parameters where they define an enclosed space. That breezeway exceeds
those parameters, and therefore, they see it as an enclosed space and a hazard, so, they've requested
the applicant provide the entry point along El Camino Real.
Chair Furth: They've requested that the applicant...?
Mr. Brennan: Relocate the access to that circulation island along El Camino Real.
Chair Furth: You would move the staircase and elevator from where to where? Applicant?
Mr. Potts: The slide on the screen shows the staircase and elevator were just reconfigured and the access was placed on the front...
Chair Furth: That means when you come down the staircase in the event of fire, you're exiting to open
air and not the breezeway.
Mr. Potts: Correct.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Board Member Thompson: All right. I just wanted to thank Mr. Moss for his comments, as well. I'll echo
in sort of a different way, also start from the beginning. In general, I think the project still kind of has a
lot of its nicest materials on the upper side, and it seems like the party is on the upper two floors, when
really it should be a pedestrian-focused design. I feel like the pedestrian-oriented part still hasn't, it still
isn't successful as something that should be pedestrian oriented, mainly in that the quality of the
materials is poorer. And in terms of proportionality, you have a 13-foot-one height on there. I feel like,
typically, retail on the ground floor is 14 feet. Even then, in terms of the massing, you have...Typically, something that successfully pedestrian-oriented has a datum at that, sort of 14 feet. In your design, because of the pop-outs, you have these wood pop-outs, it's sort of undermining that datum and sort of crippling the pedestrian-focused part of the project, making it something that's in the background instead
of something that should be in the foreground. I feel like the project suffers from that, in that sense, that
it really should be more pedestrian-focused. It's not successfully doing that at the moment. In other
views, for example, the wall for the garage entry, talking about particularly the street view on A-17, is
kind of this blank, white wall. That could be a really nice opportunity to do something that could benefit
the pedestrian experience, but it is not. Also, I'm not a fan of the signage, and I think in your renderings,
it doesn't help you fight for your building. I also commend you on showing renderings that don't have
trees on them because it really does expose the architecture for what it is. A lot of other applicants tend
to cover up their design with trees, so I'm really glad that you're more honest about what you're
City of Palo Alto Page 17
describing. At the same time, it might be worthwhile to rethink the signage because I don't know that it's
helping you in terms of how you're portraying this building. The roofline is kind of all over the place.
There's a lot of different lines, so the actual massing of the building is a little fuzzy. I think it's a little
confusing to look at. I recommend looking at your data on the roof and your data at the pedestrian level.
Those are kind of important elements for El Camino. But, in general, yeah, there's sort of this busyness,
and it seems like you have this relationship between the white and the wood, and at the moment, there's
a fight between the two. There's not really any hierarchy, so I would recommend having something that is a hierarchy. Maybe your white is your exoskeleton and your wood is your innards. Right now, there's sort of a fight between the two, and I think the project could benefit from further using massing and materials to highlight the parts that are important, like the pedestrian walkway part. Sorry, I wrote a lot of things. I'll start there.
Chair Furth: Would you like to keep thinking, or would you like to speak?
Vice Chair Baltay: No, I'm confused. I'm noticing that there's an Option B perspective on sheet A019,
which I hadn't heard any mention of. I'm wondering why that's there, how we're supposed to consider
that. Is it allowable to ask the applicant to address that?
Chair Furth: Of course.
Mr. Potts: (inaudible)
Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah. It's a --
Mr. Potts: (inaudible) totally different. (inaudible) That is the original front elevation. Our preference
actually was to keep the screen, but it felt like the consensus from the previous ARB -- and I know
everybody wasn't here -- was that the screening was too dominant along the streetscape, so we did leave that in there. We didn't make any of the other adjustments to that option, so the awnings that were added and some of the beams that were removed and things, we didn't follow through and make all the adjustments to that.
Commissioner Gooyer: I had the same question. When you were going through the presentation, it was
pretty obvious that was their initial design. On 19.
Vice Chair Baltay: My question of the applicant, you're putting this here because you think this is the
superior design. Is that right?
Mr. Moss: Yes.
Vice Chair Baltay:
Chair Furth: (Inaudible)
Vice Chair Baltay: No, I'd like to respond to that. I wouldn't say it's a superior design, but it looks like a
more designed design. It looks like you worked on this one. And I have to be honest with you, the ones
we're looking at, we're not even given a rendering of the same quality, so it's hard to judge. It looks like
you just sort of took a knife to it and cut it apart. At least this has the quality Osma was talking about,
where there's a sense to the materials. They're trying to interplay. The white forms go back and forth in a logical way. It's inappropriate, perhaps, for its location, which I think is our initial response. But what we're looking at now is such a jumble of materials and forms. I'm just looking at the main rendering along El Camino, and I'm trying really hard to get my head around how to react to it, I guess, on a
couple of levels. Let me try to be clearer. Osma alluded to the fact that you have these two materials, the
dark horizontal wood and the bright white plaster. Yet, there doesn't seem to be much logic, or integrity,
or design effort put into integrating them together. She suggested a couple of ideas. I can throw out
another one -- that you have a mixed-used building with commercial and residential. You might let each
material try to symbolize and play with that, so you have more of the wood, perhaps, in the back or on
the residential upper level. Right now, I think your Option B really tells me something. You're just not
trying as hard to get this one right. That's not going to get any of us closer to a real good answer
because it has to be good. It's an important location. Secondly, I want to keep bringing up the fact that
City of Palo Alto Page 18
we have these El Camino Real guidelines, and they're asking for buildings to be good, urban, civic
citizens, which means you form a part of the public space, which is the El Camino Real corridor. The
façade of your building somehow sets the stage for that civic life that takes place in front of it. I don't see
anything about this building trying to do that, even. The guidelines allude to a base, a middle and a top
on a building, and we're not trying to be Renaissance architects here, but at the same time, this building
just doesn't seem to be cognizant of the fact that...It could be in a big grassy field, seen from 20 feet
away, and it's not. It's on the edge of the busiest street in Palo Alto. Again, it just seems to miss the boat on adhering to the El Camino Real guidelines. There's been some discussion over how firmly we want to be enforcing that, but I think the Board is coalescing around the ideas that these buildings do have to follow the guidelines. While I'm talking about, I'd like to address that I think your overall site planning is to be commended. It's really quite good. It really works. The way you bring in the residential from the back, and that surface parking is out of site, but very practical. The idea of having that pedestrian pass-
through through the property is fantastic. It's a very busy pedestrian area. For whatever reason, there's
an enormous number of kids on bicycles, families walking through there. I know I used to live a little
further down East Meadow, and it's quite true that, for some reason, people walk through here. Providing
that shortcut through is fantastic and it's worth a lot to keep that there. I really commend you for that.
Okay. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Okay. I'm going to take Chair's privilege and tell you what I think before we proceed. First of
all, thank you for coming back to us. I agree with Peter. I think your site plan is really thoughtful, and to
me, it does look like you've read the South El Camino design guidelines and thought about what they
request. I appreciate what you've done on both the El Camino Way frontage and the El Camino frontage,
and I very much appreciate the passage through. I think that will be a great amenity. In Phillip's staff report, he talked about it's a little hard to discern the architectural character of this area. I think that's undoubtedly true. When you range from Fuki Sushi to the HoneyBaked Ham, depending on which meal it
is, to some of the more recent buildings. But, I think a character is emerging. I hadn't realized until we
started talking about this, that this is basically the food court of south Palo Alto. This is the destination
place for food, and every time something happens, people get very upset about the loss of a favorite
restaurant. But, originally it was small buildings, large parking lots, terrible back frontages, open,
unhidden garbage containers. It looks really tacky. And, more to the point, it makes it less pleasant to
walk and bike by there. And then, you have the very heavily traveled Goodwill drop-off point -- which is
always congested except when they're closed -- next to you. And then, you have an interesting collection
of small offices, an increasing rare form of space in this town. And, as you've all noted, really heavy
traffic from young people. I would say that that step-back building, small buildings, big parking lot, that
starts to change with the redevelop projects. I spent a lot of time driving up and down and walking up
and down. I guess 4131 is the Starbucks building, and the other, sort of reconfigured thing is 4073. The animal hospital, definitely not. And then, I've been trying to figure out what it is that works there. One of the things is they do have this general earth tones approach to life. Our plan says we want it to be village-y, which I think means not Disney Village, but it means that the design is driven by what the property owner wants to do, while at the same time enhancing what's already there and helping build
something coherent. I was surprised that Fuki Sushi's parcels actually do have a strong street presence,
because even though that's a low building, it's right up to the sidewalk, and it's a very strong design. It's
eye-catching. The whole building is the sign. I mean, we talk about this in the Stanford shopping center.
It's not their sign; they've got the whole façade. And in the case of this riff on Japanese architecture, it
makes it a very strong statement at the curb. That's actually a pretty useful thing to have near you. I
agree that having an essentially unused building to provide parking is probably more functional than
consistent with the plan. Okay. That's how I see the context in which we're expected to say that you're
enhancing it all. It would be very helpful, by the way, to have a photo montage of the back of El Camino
Way when we see this again, though I think there's no doubt that yours is going to be the best-looking El
Camino frontage that we've seen. Now, on to my more significant concerns. I'm concerned about secure residential parking in a mixed-use garage. You may know from some of our previous discussions that we think that a person should be able to come home late at night, get into their parking, and not encounter ill-intentioned strangers in their unsecured garage. I don't know how you're going to address that problem, but it needs to be addressed. One of the things...I was trying to find this finding, but generally
we have - we have dozens, as you know - we generally have a philosophy that when you have residential
development, it should look like residential development. A person approaching the building or driving by
City of Palo Alto Page 19
the building should be able to tell, ah, that's residential upstairs. Your terraces do a great deal of that.
They help with that. But, I don't think commercial signage is appropriate on that higher level. I'm very
grateful to you for showing signage on your elevations because we do ask people to do that so we can
visualize how it works, but I think it conflicts with the second and third story uses. I do understand that
there is an office on the second floor. So, I would like that lower. Speaking about the rear-side, this is
going to be run by a homeowners' association, not a landlord, but I think we should consider a covenant
that requires people to keep their garage doors open when they're not accessing that space. Or closed. Sorry. This is an issue where I live, and mostly we do it with social pressure, but it makes a huge difference in what you will see, driving up East Meadow. You're talking about attractive glass doors, and I think they will look good if they're closed, and it won't if they aren't. Not that people are going to store trash in their parking, but it just doesn't generally look good. I don't find the freestanding beam elements along the El Camino frontage successful. I know that those elements are used at the corner of El Camino
and California in the Carrasco Building. I went back and looked at it again and they don't even start on El
Camino until you get three floors up. It gives you a really coherent building lower down. I think
particularly because of the angles you're dealing with, those elements just further confuse the eye, so I
do not find them an addition. They also scream - or seem to in the elevations - the view of the second
floor...do I mean second floor? Yeah. The second-floor residential terrace, there's one on the second
floor, and I don't see what they add. I would prefer the building without them. There's an area called
Public Access Area on the third floor. Is that the common open space for the project? It's not open to the
general public, is it? Staff? The area defined as Public Access Space. Is that common open space? Who
has access to it?
Mr. Brennan: The public.
Chair Furth: The general public? How?
Mr. Brennan: I'm sorry, Chair Furth. Are you speaking of the open space area on the right side, along El Camino Way?
Chair Furth: No, I'm referring to the upper floors.
Mr. Brennan: The upper floors.
Chair Furth: Public space, dedicated deck, third floor. I'm looking at A0007.
Mr. Brennan: Yeah, I'm sorry, that's identified as a public space, presumably for the occupants of the
building.
Chair Furth: Okay, it's not public. It might be shared, it might be accessible, but it's not public. We're the
public.
Mr. Brennan: No.
Chair Furth: That's private. It's good to know, I'm glad it's there, but that's usually what we refer to as
common open space for residential projects. Perhaps we could clear that. I think they do have some nice publicly-accessible spaces. I'm also concerned about the garage access. I do think it's a good site plan. I understand the difference in the lengths of the two sides, and it means that you really need to have the driveway over there. But, big driveways that go down suddenly like this are not generally pleasant to walk by. And on larger sites, we can deal with this by having a horizontal entry that then drops down.
But, you need to do something cleverer here. It might be...I mean, I think one of the problems with the
image that we're seeing on the cover is that it just shows it as a big dark space. That's even less
attractive. We have very inexpensive-to-operate LED lighting now so that we can have very good near-
daylight lighting of these spaces, which I think can make a difference. Designing those walls so that
you're aware of how much pedestrian traffic will be going by there. Doing something with the wall on the
Suki Fushi side, so perhaps it's more open screen, so people are clearer about what's happening there. I
think all those things would help. I agree that your drawings of the first vision were more coherent. This
elevation does not make sense to me. Okay.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Board Member Lew: I agree with all of the comments the other board members have made. I have very
similar notes, I made very similar notes, so I'm not going to repeat any of them. The only additional
things that I have to say are, one, is the El Camino Way façade. In a way, I think your previous design
was better. If you think about the building on access with East Meadow, I think it had a stronger
presence on there. Maybe it was a little too strong, but I think there was something there with the
spines, as you called them. I do think the current design is a little too weak if you think about the
building on access. I do have a concern that the balconies may be too deep on the northeast-facing façade. For the second floor, they may be too deep and shade too much from the light of the sunlight onto the second-floor units. I share Mr. Moss's comment about landscaping along El Camino. We have other buildings. We've had a whole bunch of different conditions on new projects on El Camino, and I think some of them are a little too stark. I would support more planters in there. I do understand the City has issues with, like, an eight-food minimum width for pedestrians, and then, that clear of the street
trees. I understand their issues there, but if you can consider recessed doors or planters, I think that
would go a long way to making it more friendly. And consider that, like, the sycamore trees on El Camino
are deciduous, so for many months of the year, it's pretty stark. On the native plants, you have a native
plant finding, and I think that the number of native plants is pretty low. I think you have a lot of unusual
circumstances on the site, which would prevent a high percentage of native plants. You've got
Rhaphiolepis in the planting areas, in the planter strips along El Camino Way. I think that there are native
options for that. Also, where you have the New Zealand flax along the property line with HoneyBaked
Ham. I don't think there's a native substitution for that particular aesthetic, but I think that that may be
an option as well for a different kind of plant that's more wildlife-beneficial. I would say that the plants that have been selected are, they're non-native, but they are drought-tolerant, and they are bulletproof. I definitely want to acknowledge that. So, I think this one still has a long way to go. I think it's a viable scheme, generally, but I think it's missing the architecture. In my mind, we have some buildings, like 1795 El Camino Real, which is a Ken Hayes building at Park Avenue. He has some other buildings at 1845
El Camino. In my mind, you're not that far away from that level of design. I think it's just proportions and
materials. I think you can get there. I don't want to be too negative about your project, but I do think it
has a ways to go to get to the level of our other projects on El Camino.
Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I also agree pretty much with most everything else that's been said. A
couple of things just to emphasize a little bit. I do agree that, I think the rear needs to be more
residential-looking. It's still a bit institutional-looking. It's come a long way since the first go-around, but I
think it needs a little bit more there. Maybe some more of the wood on the back side rather than the
front side. I also agree that when I saw the two variations, I think where you are going with the initial
design is better than the second one. I think the second one is just too chopped up and not really doing
it for you. I also have to agree that it's real tough to have one of these, you know, garage where you dump in. The problem is also it's being emphasized by pulling the building all the way to the property line at that point. I'm not always a big fan of setting the building back, but in that particular case, I think it
will help if you lighten up the entry a little bit so it doesn't look quite as menacing right at the face of the
property line. I'll leave it at that. I think you've got enough input at this point.
Chair Furth: Does anybody want to disagree with something somebody said afterwards, which would be
helpful for the applicant to hear now, not later?
Board Member Lew: I have one general comment. Two of you have mentioned that residential use
should look residential, and I don't necessarily disagree with that in this particular location. But, if you go
to Venice...
Chair Furth: I do that so seldom these days.
[crosstalk]
Board Member Lew: I just mention Venice because one of my friends is there at the moment. But, there
isn't really a distinction between commercial and residential because they were all in the same building, and they were separated on different floors. The distinction was between religious buildings and
City of Palo Alto Page 21
everything else. And it works there. And I don't know why we would necessarily need...? To me, it raises
a larger question. Why do we need that distinction between the two?
Chair Furth: I don't see it as a need for distinction as much as signaling the presence of residential uses.
The signaling cue is for those 12 Venetians still living in the city. I mean, this is a long-term, stable
population, which understands why these buildings were built this way in the 17th or 16th or 12th
centuries. I don't think we quite have that situation on El Camino Real. A couple things. I think signaling
the presence of retail and residential tells pedestrians that they are in an occupied part of the city, that
it's not an abandoned area, and it's not closed off. I just think it adds pleasure. We're a housing-short area, and these tend to be new forms of housing. These are generously but modestly-sized units. These are going to be a great addition to our community. I notice that we're going to generate enough office
space jobs. I don't know it's going to help our jobs/housing balance, but somebody is going to get to live
there. That's what I think about it. And did I make up this finding, or does it exist somewhere? Am I just
thinking about SOFA 2, or something?
Board Member Lew: There used to be something in the comp plan about having residential, that
residential units should have a strong presence facing the street. Some sort of entrance.
Chair Furth: Yeah.
Board Member Lew: And it's been modified in the new comp plan. It's not quite as strong.
Chair Furth: All right. I will just tell you that that's my feeling, and I do feel fairly strongly that it shouldn't
be labeled as if it were commercial.
Board Member Gooyer: I think this particular project is a little unique in the sense that there's a front and
a back that are totally void of each other. I mean, you don't have...I do think, especially in this case, the back should look more residential. I don't think if you're on El Camino that the second two floors need to look more residential than the ground floor, for instance. I think that's where the distinction is. I think the rear should look more residential in the front, but I don't think you need to split it on a horizontal level.
Chair Furth: And I'm not saying that you need to have different materials or different design. I think you
might be more likely to have windows that open. There are other things that cue me to tell me that
people live there.
Board Member Thompson: Yeah. I mean, I think that...Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
Chair Furth: I don't know. It says El Camino Way frontage should be more intimately scaled to suit the
mixed residential character, with highly-articulated massing, balconies and plazas. I think you got that.
And they keep talking about a village setting. I have no idea what they mean on El Camino, but I think
that means places you would like to walk.
Board Member Thompson: I think for me, it's really about scale. In many ways, office...I'm just like, for
example, fenestration. The scale of fenestration at an office level or at a retail level is so different than
what it would be at a residential level. And it's not just that detail, but there's also massing, and kind of... Yeah, there's this different...I think that's kind of what's exciting about a mixed use, is that you can sort of have all these little levels of detail in there. But, yeah, I think it kind of, it does matter, too. Yeah, just in terms of the functionality. You don't want to live in an office building necessarily.
Chair Furth: To me, it's most important that it have a design that seems more coherent to me. And you
always have the problem, you know, El Camino, people go by fast, and at the same time we're saying,
and it should be a nice place to walk. I'm not saying this is easy, but I think you're capable of it. Anything
else? Any questions from staff?
Mr. Brennan: Yeah, I just had a clarifying question for Board Member Thompson. You were mentioning
some issues with signage. Could you just clarify? Were they in line with the comments that Chair Furth
was mentioning, or...?
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I mean, I think the suggestion to have them lower is a good idea. I
think the scale at that, at least in the renders, seemed sort of out of scale. They seemed very big. So,
City of Palo Alto Page 22
lower, maybe something, something for pedestrians, something for cars. But, I think, yeah, no one is
going to be reading that signage on the ground, on the sidewalk.
Mr. Brennan: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Okay. Staff has asked us to continue this to a date uncertain?
Mr. Brennan: Yes.
Chair Furth: I would like to say that I think I agree with Alex, that this is a perfectly possible project. We
get projects that don't have site designs that work, the site design doesn't work, it becomes apparent
that the proposed program for the building doesn't fit on the site. I haven't heard any of us say that. We all believe that this is a desirable program with some wonderful elements, and we're finding the design a bit incoherent. And then, you heard a lot of specific comments.
MOTION
Chair Furth: I would entertain a motion to continue this to a date uncertain.
Vice Chair Baltay: Can I have one...?
Chair Furth: You may.
Vice Chair Baltay: I want to end on a positive note because I think you're doing something that all those
buildings in Venice Alex mentioned does, which is to get people living outside of your building, on the
balconies and terraces. I really do commend you. You have a lot of places for people to be, both in the
front and the back, and I encourage you strongly to keep that and feel good about that. That's what
residential architecture is, to some degree. I commend you for the outdoor spaces you've created on the
building.
Chair Furth: Okay. Is that confusing enough for you? May I have a motion, please? To continue this to a
date uncertain.
Board Member Lew: I'll make a motion that we continue to a date uncertain.
Board Member Gooyer: I'll second.
Chair Furth: There's been a motion made to continue this project to a date uncertain. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. Than you.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
Chair Furth: I would just like to say that my vocabulary is improving with my participation with you all. I
now know how to spell "partee" [phonetic] pronounce it and use it, (inaudible). Fortunately, the
Smithsonian has a very good architectural design curriculum intended for high schools that defines all
these things with illustrations. Anything else we want to talk about before we go?
Board Member Lew: We have minutes.
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 2018.
Chair Furth: Oh, yes. I have sent staff my corrections on the minutes. They were all clerical suggestions.
Board Member Thompson: I have to abstain. I haven't had a chance to read them.
Chair Furth: All right, then, from those who did attend that meeting, which is the meeting of...what?
Board Member Lew: May 3rd.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Chair Furth: May 3rd.
MOTION
Chair Furth: May I have a motion to approve the minutes?
Board Member Lew: I have some comments.
Chair Furth: All right.
Board Member Lew: Okay. On page 5, there's an area that's highlighted in yellow. That's supposed to be
photovoltaic array, otherwise known as solar panels. On page 11, the previous tenant was DPIXS, and they've moved to Colorado. And then, on page 27, I think there's a reference to Jan Jacobs, and I think that should be Jane Jacobs. That's all that I have.
Chair Furth: I would now entertain a motion to approve.
Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we approve the minutes for May 3rd, as amended with
those three items, as well as Wynne's...
Chair Furth: They're typos. It's the three points you raised, except I didn't know how to spell DPIXS, and
a few other similar items.
Board Member Lew: Got it.
Chair Furth: They're clerical errors.
Board Member Lew: I make a motion that we approve the minutes of May 3rd.
Chair Furth: Robert, did you second?
Board Member Gooyer: I'll second that.
Chair Furth: All right. All those in favor in aye? Opposed, none. It passes 4-0-1, with Board Member
Thompson abstaining because she was not at that meeting.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0-1.
Subcommittee Items
Chair Furth: We have no subcommittee items today. We should indicate for the record that Vice Chair
Baltay and Board Member Thompson will be the subcommittee for 3945 El Camino Real. Does that do us?
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements
Board Member Lew: I have a question.
Board Member Thompson: I should clarify.
Board Member Lew: Under Board Member comments and announcements, I have a question for staff. On
the appeal of 620 Emerson, which I think Council was supposed to hear this week...? Meeting on
Monday?
Chair Furth: What they...
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Board Member Lew: We received an email about that.
Chair Furth: What they did was three members of the Council voted to pull it from the consent agenda.
Their policy now is that when that happens, it's set for hearing at a future date. You remind me that I
should report that at the request of staff, I attended the Council meeting in case they needed any
commentary from the Architectural Review Board on the project at the corner of El Camino Real and
Page Mill. They did not need any commentary from us, but I couldn't figure out a polite way to leave, so,
I was there until 1:30 in the morning, as were they, working hard. The project was ultimately approved on a 7-2 vote. Most of the issues, you'll be happy to know, I think, that the issues that caused them concern were not the kind of site-specific design issues that we dealt with.
Ms. Gerhardt: On the 620 Emerson, as Chair said, it will go to public hearing because it's been pulled off
of consent. I'll have to let you know what that exact date is.
Board Member Lew: And then, the Verizon sites, which had seven appeals, my understanding is that the
Council did not hear any of them. They declined to pull.
Ms. Gerhardt: I don't know the outcome on that, so I will have to email you. Sorry.
Board Member Lew: And then...
Chair Furth: We'll check it. Oh, how is the progress of the...?
Board Member Lew: ...the North Ventura...
Chair Furth: ...North Ventura?
Board Member Lew: ...has been pushed back, the kick-off has been pushed back a month.
Chair Furth: To...? Which month are we talking about now?
Board Member Lew: One month. July.
Chair Furth: July. Thank you. Anything else before we adjourn? All right, we are adjourned. Thank you very much.
Adjournment
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Robert Gooyer.
Absent: Board Member Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson.
Chair Furth: Good morning. I call to order the June 21st meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review
Board. May we have the roll call, please.
[Roll Call]
Chair Furth: Thank you. We have two absences, of which we had advance notice.
Oral Communications - see below
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Graham Owen, Associate Planner: None for the current agenda.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative
Future Agenda items.
Chair Furth: Which includes future ARB schedule. It's item number 1 in our packet.
Mr. Owen: Item number 1. We have two upcoming dates in July. The first is July 5th, 375 Hamilton
Avenue. That's one of the projects that we're reviewing today. If there's the need for the third hearing on
this project, that's the date we're tentatively scheduling this for. Three-two-two-three Hanover is a new
office R&D building, and we are moving forward with that date -- July 5th -- for the next hearing. That's
a second hearing. July 19th, AT&T prelim for small cell nodes, that's been pushed off to a date uncertain.
And then...
Chair Furth: It will not be on July 19th?
Mr. Owen: It will not, no. And then, 250 Sherman Avenue, Public Safety building, I believe that one is still
going on the 19th?
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: No. No. We are waiting for plans to come in, maybe today, and
we're looking towards a meeting in August for that project. Public Safety building.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: June 21, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Furth: All right. Okay. Thank you. Any questions about these dates? Okay.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00360]:
Recommendation for a Request for Approval of an Architectural Review Application
for a Five-Level, 50' Tall Parking Structure, With One Below Grade Parking Level,
Providing 325 Public Parking Spaces and Approximately 2,000 Square Feet of Retail
Space Fronting Waverley Street. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published May 18, 2018 and circulated for public comments. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Furth: Item number 1 [sic] is a public hearing, it's a quasi-judicial public hearing, and it concerns
375 Hamilton Avenue. It's a request for a recommendation on architectural review approval of an
architectural review application for a five-level, 50-foot-tall parking structure with one below-grade
parking level, providing 325 public parking spaces and approximately 2,000 square feet of retail space
fronting Waverly. And, perhaps more important for us today, there is a draft Environmental Impact
Report, which was published on May 18th and is being circulated for public comment. One of the
purposes of today's hearing is to take public hearing on that environmental document, and also to hear
any comments from the members of the Board. As you can...Oh, so sorry, we'll get there in just a
second. We have some, is that right?
Mr. Owen: We have one speaker who would like to speak.
Chair Furth: Super. We will get back to Item 2, and we will do Oral Communications.
[The Commission returned to Oral Communications]
Oral Communications
Chair Furth: We have so little. It's nice to have it. Oral communication is the time for any person here who wishes to speak about an item that's not on the agenda, but which is within the scope of our
operations here, is welcome to do so. I have a card from Jack Morton. Mr. Morton?
Jack Morton: Thank you, members of the ARB. Just wanted to express our appreciation for your patience
with the process. Cal Lab [phonetic] is very, very anxious about the changes that are going to occur,
both because of the garage, and of course, the police building. We wanted to be sure that you have on
record, you know, we're very anxious that the area have adequate parking, but when it comes, again, to
the public building, we're also very concerned that the police department seems to want to move all of
its, let's say emergency stuff from East Bayshore down to a closed area. It's something that the
community doesn't feel is appropriate there. We just want to be on record that when that comes up
again, we'll come back and express the...We didn't want to surprise anybody, that the closed yard that
was part of the original design is something that's a very big concern to both the neighbors, and
particularly, for the businesses. So, get that on record, and thank you very much for hearing me this morning. Again, our appreciation for your patience with this process. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? We don't have a date yet for that to come back to us, do we?
Ms. French: Well, we are expecting the plans this week, and we are targeting August 2nd, but it's not set
in stone at this point. We're shooting for that.
Chair Furth: But it should be...
Ms. French: We're shooting for that, yes, August 2nd.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Chair Furth: August 2nd. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on oral communication? All right.
[The Board returned to Item 2.]
Chair Furth: We'll try again on Item Number 2, which is still a public hearing on the downtown garage
proposed at 375 Hamilton Avenue, and in particular, on the Environmental Impact Report, which has
been available for some time. Before we do this, this is quasi-judicial. Does anybody...? I think we've all
visited the site, correct? Multiple times? Has anybody had any communications outside of our board
meetings they wish to or need to report? I have. I met with staff, with Brad and others, before this meeting, to go over what they planned to present. The one piece of information that I had not focused on, which is not to say it was not in the literal mountain of information they gave us, was the need to relocate electrical and telecommunications lines, fiber line, that presently go from Hamilton towards CVS.
They go through the existing parking lot. And the affect that that has on their choices and preferences
with respect to open spaces around the edge of the project. Having said that, staff report, please.
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you. Today, the purpose of the hearing is to conduct the
comment, the public testimony hearing on the draft Environmental Impact Report, which you received
the binder of. These are at the libraries and on line. They were circulated to the state clearing house, as
well as the county notice of preparation and availability. The second piece of today is to hear from the
architect on the modified project plans, and hear about how these comments that were provided on
February 15th were addressed in the revised plans. Finally, your comments as the three members
present, as to anything you would like to see come back at the July hearing. Right now, we have said
we're coming back on July 5th, as all members are available. This was noted as a value of this Board, to
have all five members present to make a recommendation to the City Council on this project. On the screen -- and this was in the staff report -- is the process that we've been through. The Environmental Quality Act of California requires several stages of review. We opted for the scoping hearing to be conducted by the Planning Commission back last year, May 31st -- more than a year ago now -- and then, the City Council had conducted a pre-screening meeting regarding the changes proposed to the
public facilities zoned district to accommodate public safety building, essential service buildings, and
public parking garages. We then had two preliminary hearings, one with the HRB and one with the ARB --
yourselves -- back in the end of summer last year. Then we had our first formal back in February. This is
the second formal hearing. We try to do public buildings in two hearings. Obviously, the need for five
members, you know, gives us the opportunity to have a third hearing because that has been expressed
as desired. Then, as far as the Public Facilities’ own development standards ordinance, that was approved
by Council on June 11th, just last week, and it will be going back, a second meeting on June 25th. They
did approve all the changes, and as noted, the Council will be reviewing each of these projects that
comes through with these exception to the zoning standards. Then, we're looking towards going back in
the fall to Council with this project, the downtown garage. Some of the issues that were identified previously were this pedestrian path from Hamilton to CVS. It's a path that's traveled today through a parking lot, so it will continue to be traveled through a parking lot. But, the experience is a bit modified, coming from a plaza that goes past the bicycle and, with strollers now, stroller parking, through the garage, angling over to this pedestrian alley, the improved alley that would have features including
pedestrian amenities, benches, landscaping. And then, there would be this other alley exiting over to
Waverly. The first-floor ceiling has been raised to 12-6 to provide a more spacious head height for the
pedestrians walking through there. The architect will cover this in detail. Then, we have our second issue,
which is the Hamilton setback. The response has been to increase the setback from Hamilton. It is now a
three-foot setback, otherwise known as a four-foot encroachment, into the seven-foot special setback. It
is better aligned with the AT&T building, which is the shaded building to the left. What this has done is it
has reduced the number of parking spaces provided in the garage at each level. The third issue is...that's
right, there's these little...okay. Trying to get to the next slide. There we go. Key issue three is the
architecture and the landscaping, which the architect will cover in his presentation. There are some key
features of the concrete use, with the punched indents on the Hamilton side and not on this side. And
then, we have vines growing up with cables. We have some durable concrete use in the alley to allow for all of the logistics there. And, we have alley plantings that are going to be working with the shade. We have a letter that's coming forward....Not? Okay. So, there's a letter that will be coming forward from the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
landscape architect that will discuss the plant materials chosen. That will be available at our next hearing,
if not before. We do have stormwater planters that will be at grade in Lane 21 here, but then, in the alley
there will be some raised planters, and along Hamilton. We do have more street trees showing in the
new plans that we've received, so two additional trees on each of the frontages. That is the new look
here. We have a little more detail on the art that is to be used at the stair enclosure and over the
driveway entry. The fourth issue was the property owner, the adjacent property operations along the rear
of the Waverly businesses. I did forward to the Board a couple additional letters that were not in the packet. Those are available here for the public if they are interested to see those, behind me here. One is dated May 10th, and that one is to Ms. Wong, the property owner of 550 Waverly, and the other one is to Holly Boyd, and that was dated February 26. I guess that's the end of my presentation. Oh, yeah. Just a brief review. We have the Downtown Urban Design Guide with our Hamilton district. A lot of the...Just a reminder of what this guidebook was seeking, including strong corners and pedestrian links, outdoor
amenities. It's what we've got here. Let me turn this over now to our architect to make a presentation.
Do you have any further words for...?
Mr. Owen: No, not at that is point. Let's get the architect.
Chair Furth: Good morning, Mr. Hayes. You have 10 minutes.
Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good morning, Chair Furth, members of the Board. My name is Ken
Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'll be making the presentation on behalf of the project team. Most of
them are here in case you have questions. Michelle Wendler and Gordon Knowles from Watry Design
Group, as well as Lorraine Ahlquist and Lynn Marie Boovay [phonetic] from WSP, the environmental
consultants, and Terry Murphy from my office. Just to refresh on the salient points of the program, the
physical program, we still have five above-grade levels and one basement level. We have reduced the parking count to 325 spaces from...Did I do that?
[Brief pause, adjusting slide presentation.]
Mr. Hayes: We're back to the salient aspects of the physical program. Three hundred and twenty-five
parking stalls down from the 338. We've increased the bike parking, almost doubling that. There was
some expense on the retail space, so that's 1,955 square feet now. We're showing the plans with the
future solar voltaic system on top of the building. We're all familiar with the site. It's a two-thirds of an
acre asphalt parking lot on the corner of Waverly and Hamilton. Lane 21 is behind. The property is zoned
PF. Surrounding properties are CDC, GF, with a pedestrian overlay predominantly around it. The
properties that are in green are historic properties, so we know the Category 1 historic post office across
Hamilton Street. At the back of the site here is Lane 21, and that's a one-way alley to the left, to Bryant
Street, essentially. I want to point out that on the corner, we are widening the sidewalk here by
extending the curb out. That's going to be about 18 feet, I think, in the end, and then, the sidewalk
along Hamilton is also being extended out to match the curb, and that will be about 14 feet on that
frontage. What we heard in February -- and thank you, Amy, for introducing the project -- the special setback, I think Council on June 11th probably has eliminated that from the site development requirement, but this was a concern that was expressed at the last hearing. Also, this pedestrian alley, why do we need the pedestrian alley? I'll talk a little bit about that. And then, there was some comments
regarding the strength of this connection between Hamilton Avenue and the rear alley and CVS, as well
as the introduction of more bicycle parking and perhaps some stroller parking, as well. This is the new
site plan. The building has moved essentially three feet in on Hamilton here to better align with the AT&T
building. We've done that by going to minimums pretty much inside the garage, but still compliant with
the City requirements for parking space design here, and a 22-foot-wide ramp to go below and to go
above. The alley is needed for a number of reasons, and ironically, it is actually a setback that is in the
site development regs for the PF. That may have been modified now by Council, but that is a 10-foot side
setback. We are respecting a 10-foot setback here, even more than that, as well as the back of the
building, a 10-foot setback there. The alley is needed for many things, including required openings in the
garage, that we can have a naturally-ventilated garage. We don't have to have mechanical ventilation.
It's there to alleviate some of the construction costs associated with underpinning of the Thai Pan
City of Palo Alto Page 5
restaurant building next door, and it also creates a wonderful pedestrian linkage to one of the main
circulation elements of the garage, the stair that extends from the basement to the top of the building.
There will be pedestrian enhancements in the alley that I'll talk about a little later on. We also are
bringing our utilities in there, so the utilities that are being relocated, that actually comes through the
parking lot now, will be in a joint trench in that pedestrian space below grade. At the expense of three
automobiles in this location here, we've made a stronger entrance, I think, for this connection to get
through the building. You bypass the bottom of the ramp on the safe side of the garage. You would cross here in a crosswalk, run past the vertical stair element, and then, circulate in the pedestrian alley there. The garage has been raised 12 inches to create a little more welcoming feel as you walk through the garage. None of this precludes someone from wanting to walk straight through the garage like they do now, through the parking lot, but we think is a nicer experience. The bike area, as I said, has increased by about 50 percent, and that will be a secure bike area for strollers and bicycles, easily accessible. You
can take your bike out this way or take it back out to Hamilton. On the elevations, there were some
concerns. This is Hamilton on the scale, and use of the concrete, and maybe the power of that façade
and the arcade, as well as the size and detailing of what is that stair tower. So, the changes that we've
made essentially to limit the use of the concrete, reduce the scale of that façade and the arcade, reduce
the size of that stair element itself so it really is something that circumscribes the stair itself. And then,
we've completely changed the rhythm of that façade, so instead of it being a very repetitive, kind of
colonnade sort of statement which was referencing the post office, we still have that rhythm here, but it's
really at the pedestrian scale, and we've created a horizontal band that picks up on the building next
door. That serves as a place for the vertical fins to kind of rest and provide visual support for them. Syncopation has changed. We have the perforated metal here, the perforated metal at the exterior stair. The share wall has moved in its location and it will have vines growing on it, as well as a pattern that's kind of reminiscent of Spanish Colonial architecture that are, essentially, just shadow pockets in the wall. We have benches along this side, as well as we're still celebrating the metal work that you find on the
post office at this ground floor to provide visual screening into the garage. On Waverly, the comments
were pretty much the same, although there was the added comment that the proportions were a little
odd. I agree, it was a little bit stubby on this side at that location, but the idea here was that that was a
two-story element that related to the Thai Pan space. We all agreed that that wasn't necessary, so the
new proposal has, we've reduced the concrete, we no longer have that two-story element. We introduced
the horizontal shade across the top of the retail space, and then, a transom element that ties into the
Thai Pan doors in front of that façade. We've also reduced the size of that stair enclosure, and I think, in
general, the proportions of this with the elimination of that two-story piece have changed to a much
more elegant expression, using the metal fins in that terracotta color. This gives you an idea of what that
looks like there. This element here is at the end terminus of the pedestrian alley, and that's at the stair. This is a view of the pedestrian alley from before. The Thai Pan building is superimposed in front. There was concern over the success of this alley, as well as the viability of the landscaping. We have talked with the landscape architect, who has assured that the California grape or the lilac as a vine would be fine, both in a sunny and a shady exposure. They have a preference for the California grape. It would be great
to hear what your preference is. It would also be nice to hear what your preference is on the paving
because they've given you two alternatives on the paving in the alley. This essentially shows the rhythm
of the façade there, and we've introduced the photovoltaic panels above so you can see what that's like,
to terminate the top of the building. This is the rendering of the corner, but from Waverly looking down
the pedestrian alley. You can see the board-formed concrete at this first story. Those openings are then
infilled for retail storefront with dark anodized or dark bronze frames that are topped by this metal
canopy that serves as a visual support for the vertical fins that provide the openness for the garage, and
it ties in visually from a color standpoint with the tile roofs in the neighborhood. The top of the building is
terminated by the photovoltaic panels, and actually an extension of that structure to provide a visual
terminus when you're on the sidewalk. That was something that was talked about before. This is a view
from the corner, shows the stair element in the corner and how the façade is treated down that side of the building. The artwork actually is incorporated onto this perforated metal. I'll talk about that a little bit more in a second. We're still celebrating the metal work of the stair that descends out of that canopy. Gives you an idea of that plaza space. This is our renderings of Hamilton, showing the pedestrian
benches, the vegetation, as well as the metal screen work that sort of limits views into the garage. This
metal panel wraps the corner. This is the pedestrian alley. The festooned lights that run down that alley
City of Palo Alto Page 6
will provide some visual experience. I think this is a great way of providing connections to the street. Did
that include my 30 seconds, or...?
Chair Furth: (inaudible)
Mr. Hayes: I'm just about done. We've eliminated the trees from the service alley at the back but we
extended this plant around a little bit to create more plantings and provide areas for some benches. But,
I believe there's still 12 or 13 feet across this dimension here for any kind of service to get back there.
This is the rear corner of CVS where, again, the board-formed concrete has this stand-off and wire system for the vines to grow on that wall. Tapestry is our public art, and we really wanted it to be integrated with the building. It's about creating an awareness of the topography of the Palo Alto foothills through sections of topographic data that then is incorporated into the perforated metal panels. We
thought it was a really intriguing idea. We had talked once before about how the perforated panels
visually could work. We had some images last time that then, with further collaboration of the design
team, we thought, wow, what an opportunity to integrate that artwork with the bronze corner perforated
metal. That would occur both here and at the entrance itself into the garage. I look forward to your
questions. That's my presentation. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there questions of the applicant before we hear from other members of the
public who might care to comment? I do have one speaker card. Do you want to defer your questions or
ask them now?
Vice Chair Baltay: No. Architect Hayes, could you tell me in a little more detail the spacing of these
terracotta-colored aluminum panels, the vertical ones that seem to make up the bulk of this [crosstalk]?
Mr. Hayes: Sixteen inches on center.
Vice Chair Baltay: They're mostly transparent, is that right, then?
Mr. Hayes: I believe they're two or 2 1/2 inches wide, at 16 inches on center. That's not the true width, I don't think.
Vice Chair Baltay: I see. They're 2 1/2 inches, 16 inches on center?
Mr. Hayes: And I think they're about 16 inches deep. There's a detail, Board Member Baltay, in the
drawing set. I'll tell you exactly.
Vice Chair Baltay: I ask the question because some of the renderings make it look like a solid wall. I just
want to [crosstalk]...
Mr. Hayes: I think it just is a function of how obliquely you're looking at the rendering or the drawing.
Vice Chair Baltay: And what is the design intent behind putting those there? Is it to be transparent, or to
be solid?
Mr. Hayes: It's to be both, essentially. It's to change that look of the building as you walk along the
street, but also to provide a consistent vocabulary, I think, for the façade where we need to have this
openness quality for ventilation.
Vice Chair Baltay: Do you have some sort of safety screening behind that?
Mr. Hayes: Yes.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, there will still be the 42-inch bulkhead or, in some cases, the safety cable. I think that's
shown on the...On A 3.5, Drawing 3.5, Detail 4.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I have a speaker card from Elizabeth Wong.
Elizabeth Wong: I have a thumb drive. Is it possible to...?
Chair Furth: Staff will help you with that.
[Short pause while setting up thumb drive]
Chair Furth: Good morning. You have three minutes.
Ms. Wong: Okay. Good morning, members of the ARB. My name is Elizabeth Wong. I am the manager for Waverly Post LP, which owns 558-560 Waverly Street. I want to point out a few things before my main
speech, and that is that in the Watry Design letter dated May 7th, on the third page, under Materials,
Colors, Construction -- Okay, no, no. The paragraph right before that. It says that the height of the AT&T
building at 75 feet serves as a backdrop to our building, meaning the garage. That is 50 percent shorter.
Well, this building is not 50 percent shorter than 75 feet.
Chair Furth: I think we agree with your arithmetic.
Ms. Wong. Let's see. Going over to the staff report, on page 6, it talks about the elevator penthouse
would reach a height of 63 feet. That is much more than the 50 feet or 58 feet that is usually allowed. It
is a very tall elevator. My other thing on the same page, under Setbacks and Floor Area, it says that there
is a 16 feet 7 inches from the rear wall of the Waverly Street property. Okay, so, my property is recessed
three feet. It is preposterous to count my property as to be part of that thing because I can put a wall
right on my property line at any time. So, basically, that 16 feet 7 inches should not be mentioned at all. It should be more like 13 feet. And the views, this is the view of the 558-560 Waverly, and none of the considerations of this building have been taken into account, other than the 10-foot setback. Could I have the second slide? These are the views that we have presently from a second-story office. We have three bays. This is one of them. Let me show you the second one. This is the second one. Here's the
third. And we have side windows that also show us side views. All of this will be disrupted by this huge
building. Could I have the view of the, you know, the whole building, that is part of the Ken Hayes
presentation?
Ms. French: (inaudible)
Ms. Wong: Yes, I am done with mine.
[Short pause while locating slide.]
Ms. Wong: Yeah, this one. This building is super massive. There's no need for all the vertical, whatever it
is called. I would much rather get rid of all of that and have an organic, open building, so the people who
are parking their cars can avail themselves to that beautiful view that I showed you before. This building,
you know, I think, talking about the appearance of the building, I think totally, you know, massive. I would save all that money and put the greens on the back sides of the building that the passer, you know, the way for the passengers, for the pedestrian pass way, because that's where you need it.
Chair Furth: I've given you an extra minute and a half. Could you wind up?
Ms. Wong: Yeah. So...
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Chair Furth: You've already had that extra minute.
Ms. Wong: Okay. Lastly, I want to mention that I received no letter from the Public Works, or whoever is
doing this. It wasn't addressed to me, it wasn't mailed to me. It happened to be...I found it, okay? But it
wasn't addressed to me. I did not receive it. Nor did I have any communications with them, which is a
shame, because some of these things could be easily voiced in private conversations with staff.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Ms. Wong: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Is there anybody else who would care to speak on this item before we bring it back to the Board and staff? Mrs. Wong, Board Member Baltay would like to ask you a question about your comments. Would that be acceptable?
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Mrs. Wong. I've read various correspondence from you over the course of
the review of this project, and I have great regard for your active civic in the community. But, I have to
say I'm confused as to what you really want with this building. I'm not sure if I understand you to be
saying you just don't want a parking garage there, or you want some sort of modifications. If you want
modifications, what are they? What would you like us to do?
Ms. Wong: Yeah. The modifications are elimination of the vertical slots. I think that the pedestrian
walkway at the west side of the building, the back of 558-560 Waverly should be wider. I think when you
have a garbage truck backing into there, you know, the truck is so big and the doors are so wide, that if
my next door neighbor builds to his property line, it will bang the doors of the garbage truck, or whatever
truck, service truck there is there. There's one big thing that I'd like you to do, and that is to either have
staff record an easement, or record some sort of access, for us to be able to access to the back of our building through an underground tunnel, or to allow us to pay in-lieu parking for any parking that we might need in the development of this building in the future.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything that staff wishes to comment about before we deliberate up here?
Brad Eggleston: I'd just like to comment...
Chair Furth: Could you introduce yourself for the record, for the benefit of our transcriber?
Mr. Eggleston: Oh, I'm sorry.
Chair Furth: I spoke right over you. Would you do that again?
Mr. Eggleston: Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works. I just wanted to say I'm perplexed
about why Ms. Wong didn't receive our correspondence. We will definitely look into that. We thought that
she had that.
Chair Furth: Yes?
Vice Chair Baltay: One last question for staff regarding the photovoltaic assembly on top of the building.
My understanding is that that is possibly going to be built, but not for certain. Is there any way to assess how likely it is that that will be put on top?
Mr. Eggleston: Well, it's complicated because it has to do -- at least partly -- with the incentive programs that the Utilities Department offers for local photovoltaic projects. I think you're aware, and I think the Board even saw the proposals for the photovoltaics that were placed on top four of the City's five existing
City of Palo Alto Page 9
parking garages, and we were able to enter into a lease with an entity which provided that because
Utilities Department was offering a 16.5 cent per kilowatt hour price under what they call the CLEAN
program. That program is now entirely filled and the future rate will be much less. Essentially, we've got
to assess the feasibility under future programs that will exist, of how we might do that.
Vice Chair Baltay: If I could follow up. If this program allows you to put solar panels on top of the
building, will those panels be put on per the design of this architect? Or will it be done the way you did it
on California Avenue.
Mr. Eggleston: Per the design of this architect. Our intent is to, rather than the process that we had with the previous garages, our intent is to bring the design through the Board so that we have an approved design for the potential future installation. And then, if we did that, it would be in accordance with
[crosstalk]...
Vice Chair Baltay: You're going on the record to say that if solar panels are put on, they'll be put on per
this design.
Mr. Eggleston: Correct.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Mr. Eggleston: Or we would need to go through another process. I can't speak for what the City might do
in the future.
Chair Furth: In fairness to staff, the future Council can do what it wishes.
Mr. Eggleston: Yeah.
Chair Furth: But that is in the intent at this point, and you would not view yourselves as having an
approved photovoltaic design other than this one.
Mr. Eggleston: That's correct.
Chair Furth: Robert, any questions of staff?
Board Member Gooyer: Nope.
Chair Furth: I had a question. The stormwater handling landscaping. Is it at grade, essentially, is that
right? As opposed to the higher landscaping that's in raised planters? I was just wondering if there...
Mr. Eggleston: I believe the higher landscaping is the C-3 stormwater treatment, but I'll let the architect
clarify that.
Chair Furth: I'm still a little...I have carefully studied most of these documents, but could you explain to
me where we have landscaping that's at my feet, and where it's at my knees...
Mr. Hayes: Sure.
Chair Furth: ...and how you made those decision.
Mr. Hayes: And I can understand the confusion because I think there's some conflicts on the drawing. In
the alley at the back, Lane 21...I'm sorry, the alley, the pedestrian alley and the rear of Thai Pan, those
two spaces will have raised planters. That's all drain-through for C-3. All the planters are for C-3 at the back...
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chair Furth: And "C-3" means...?
Mr. Hayes: This is the stormwater...
Chair Furth: The technical term for stormwater...
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, sorry.
Chair Furth: ...treatment, handling. Whatever.
Mr. Hayes: Correct.
Chair Furth: Reabsorption.
Mr. Hayes: And the planters in Lane 21 we're showing as being low, but there's a likelihood that they will need to be -- where's Gordon? -- higher.
Mr. Knowles: (inaudible)
Chair Furth: You need to come and speak in the microphone.
Mr. Hayes: This is Gordon Knowles with Watry Design.
Gordon Knowles, Watry Design: Good morning.
Chair Furth: Good morning. Could you introduce yourself for our transcriber?
Mr. Knowles: My name is Gordon Knowles. I'm working with Warty Design. We're the architects and
structural engineers.
Chair Furth: And how do you spell your last name?
Mr. Knowles: As in Beyonce. [Spells name.]
Chair Furth: Thank you, I'm sure she'll get that.
Mr. Knowles: She's a distant relative. The planters to the rear of Lane 21 are low-level. They're at grade.
They will still be used as C-3 or stormwater treatment. However, the planters at the moment are in the alleyway to the west of the building, the 10-foot alleyway between Thai Pan and the building are raised planters. They're also stormwater treatment. They're raised, in part, to help the treatment, but also, with deliveries coming into that alleyway, they protect the planting in that area. Our landscape architects feel,
in working with our civil engineers, that the low-level planters will still work for stormwater treatment to
the rear of the alleyway, and we didn't want to create any other larger planting areas on that alley.
However, that's our current design and the current thinking.
Chair Furth: My concern is that the existing planters -- meaning the ivy -- is constantly stepped on and in,
so whenever you have foot-level planters, we're going to be very concerned about what you put in them
so they don't get trampled and don't present a hazard. Trying to understand the plants better.
Mr. Knowles: I understand your comments. I believe there's a lip to the planter, but it's not raised as the
others, which are, I think 2 1/2 feet off the ground.
Chair Furth: Well, speaking as a member of a family where two people have broken their legs, tripping on
things of this design, I'll be interested to see what you have.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Mr. Knowles: We can [crosstalk].
Chair Furth: I wasn't either one of them. Thank you. Anything else?
Mr. Hayes: Mr. Knowles will actually be, if there is a hearing on July 5th, Mr. Knowles will actually be
doing the presentation because I will not be here.
Chair Furth: Thank you. And I should mention that two of our members are unable to be here today. We
thought that this was an important decision for everybody to participate in. They will be able to watch the
tape of this, and I'm sure that staff will make sure that they get all the slides that we saw today, both Mrs. Wong's and Mr. Hayes', so that they will be up to date when we do that. And we appreciate that this is not easy, but as it's been pointed out, this is a very big project. Okay. Robert?
Ms. French: May I just jump in, just for a moment...
Chair Furth: Certainly.
Ms. French: ...to -- thank you -- to address the 16-foot-seven-inch note that Elizabeth Wong did state.
It's an error in the staff report. It should say as per plan, 16 foot, 7 inches from the rear property line, or
the adjoining line between this property and those Waverly properties.
Chair Furth: I'm sorry, what page?
Ms. French: Page 6, or packet page 13 of the staff report. The bottom paragraph says, you know, 16 feet
7 inches from the rear wall of the Waverly Street properties. It's not. It's from the rear property line of
the...
Chair Furth: Got it.
Ms. French: ...adjoining.
Chair Furth: So, even if the Thai Pan building...I'm getting a head shake from Mrs. Wong, so I will let you all address that off line, and we'll have consensus on that, or at least our best attempt at it, before our next meeting on this subject. That brings up a question that I need you to go over again. I'm so glad I brought my magnifying glass. Those are very small drawings in the staff report, at least if you read them on paper. With the revised Public Facilities District, what is the required setback along Waverly?
Ms. French: The ordinance allowed for Council to approve...
Chair Furth: Anything.
Ms. French: ...anything.
Chair Furth: So it's zero.
Ms. French: It's project-by-project.
Chair Furth: But it's zero, is the required minimum setback.
Ms. French: Zero is required, yes.
Chair Furth: And what is the required minimum side setback for the other parcels along Waverly? Is it
CDC, or whatever it is?
Ms. French: So...
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Chair Furth: The buildings are built touching, but is there a required setback?
Ms. French: On which street? Sorry.
Chair Furth: Waverly. The Waverly frontage.
Ms. French: Zero.
Chair Furth: Okay. So, the pattern of law, by law, is zero.
Ms. French: Correct.
Chair Furth: But...
Ms. French: It's only because of the PF zone that a setback would be required at all on Waverly.
Chair Furth: But traditionally, the PF zone has required a 10-foot setback?
Ms. French: Correct.
Chair Furth: That might have been what people were anticipating. Thank you. All right. Anything else?
Robert.
Board Member Gooyer: Okay.
Chair Furth: And just to continue, we will have our detailed discussion of the building at our next
meeting, but this is a good time that shouldn't go to waste.
Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Based on the modification, or I should say, the modifications that we sort
of requested last time, I think the building has improved a great deal. I also have a bit of concern, as I
had last time, of the verticality of the middle slats. It just seems, depending on where you, you know, as
you said, I'm guessing, as you said, the idea was when you walk by it, it changes. But, like standing on
the corner of Hamilton and Waverly, you can begin to understand the relationship with the various
portions of the building. I think if you're walking on Waverly, the way to design this now, especially if you're approaching the building going...what would that be? I guess south on Waverly. That seems like an awfully massive 3 1/2 story, solid, flat wall. I have a bit of a problem with that. I can appreciate the Hamilton elevation where you've got some different materials, different textures, and I think it works
there. But, the Waverly one, I just think, not that I was a big fan of the previous design, but there was
more variation on that design than you have now. Interesting point. The comment came up about the
solar voltaic panels. Actually, I liked the design with the panels on it better than without them. I've
always been a fan of, like I said, a building having somewhat of a top or something of a distinction, and
when those panels aren't there, that isn't there. The panels are almost acting as a cap, which I like. Even
though I'm not a fan of raising the building any further than it needs to be, but somehow or other, I
think it works better. Also, just the gap makes that a whole statement at the top, and I think it looks a
whole lot better. I'd be tempted to say even without the panels, we should put something up there that
addresses that. I know, you're looking at me as though that's not going to happen, so, fine, I
understand.
Chair Furth: (inaudible) to people yet.
Board Member Gooyer: Okay, let's see. I would say at the moment, the problem, like I said, I have is, is that...I'm just not a big fan of the verticality of those panels. They're just too big. It makes it look too institutional. Not that I'm saying this needs to look like a bunch of homes put together. That's not the point. But I think it's a big step forward, but I'd like to see a little more variation. I'd be willing to say
City of Palo Alto Page 13
even if there was a concrete panel on the Waverly side that eventually would become a, sort of a green
wall, I think I'd be happier than with what I see now. That's it for the moment.
Chair Furth: Peter?
Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning, thank you. I'm going to follow right up on what Robert was saying
because I agree with the thread he was doing. I just agree that the vertical panels, especially on the
Waverly elevation, give the building a very large, solid-looking wall, and certainly from some angles, it
will just be solid-looking wall of some 35-feet tall, or so. I think that's going to cause a lot of public outcry. It’s not going to be a popular building, and I don't think it will look very good that way. It just enhances the boxy-ness, the verticality of the parking garage. I understand the difficulty of the architectural challenge when you don't have windows and you don't have other elements that are usually
used. That's why we have one of our best architects looking at this. I can offer a few ideas or thoughts
that I have, looking at it. You have a horizontal element above the retail store frontage, and if that could
be enlarged, perhaps a greater overhang, the way that it's done on the Walgreen building, or thickened
somehow. It would just take your eye off of the piece up above it, which is ultimately going to be there.
It's a parking garage. But, I think the Walgreen's building on the other corner of the same block is more
successful because of the large overhang. And maybe that's something you could integrate into it. A
second thought is that, do the top of these vertical panels need to be as high as they are? Could you pull
them down a little bit? Maybe articulate them more from the vertical concrete columns and let the safety
railing behind it stepping back, perhaps. Give you some articulation at the top of the building. I agree
completely that with the solar panels, the building looks much better, even though it's much taller. I don't
have much confidence that that's going to be built.
Mr. Hayes: [Crosstalk] it could be separated from the panels.
Vice Chair Baltay: A trellis of some kind. Something. Anything really helps with the look of the building that way. Thirdly, and this is more on the Hamilton elevation, you have basically three different materials -- the board-formed concrete, the vertical elements, and then, the perforated metal with the artistic
pattern. And they're all exactly flush along the top. To me, that just accentuates the boxy nature of the
building. I'm wondering if you can't get some sort of delineation up and down, variation someplace to
just mitigate the effect. I'm just following up on Robert's comments about the verticality and the blank
wall look of it. I find it problematic. I'd like to speak to the perforated metal screening, especially with the
idea of the topography as to the artistic theme. A year or two back, we had a, a North Face store over at
the Stanford shopping center chose to use that same idea as their sort of decorative pattern on the front.
I have to say, it's not very successful. When you walk by, you don't see a topographic map; you see a
bunch of wiggly lines.
Mr. Hayes: That's abstract.
Vice Chair Baltay: And I caution you that it's something that's already an abstract concept for many people, and I think you really want to be careful that you're confident it's going to work. I don't think it works on the storefront of Stanford shopping center, albeit that's done differently, and that's two-dimensional. But, I think it's actually a very difficult concept to pull off, that looks artistic, not just like bumps on the wall.
Mr. Hayes: On North Face, you're saying, at Stanford...?
Vice Chair Baltay: North Face store at the shopping center, yeah. I mean, their contour lines are too
thick, the colors are too bright. I mean, obviously it's a failure of execution, but I also wonder if it's not a
failure of concept. That's what I’m questioning here. I agree that making this into a piece of public art is
a great idea, and all along, Ken, you've been putting forth this idea of this muted transparency, and what
do you see and don't you see. I think those are really powerful architectural ideas. I'm not sure that the
contour concept is really the way to execute it. I can offer...So, that's the second thought about the
perforated metal panels. I do think that the board-formed concrete with the small holes and the plants on
City of Palo Alto Page 14
it is going to be very successful. It's a durable, strong material, it has an important structural purpose.
The holes do somehow relate to a historical type of architecture that you're talking about, but in a
contemporary way, I think it's a very successful treatment. I think that will be very good. I would like to
see that somehow differentiated more, maybe just by the height of it. On a separate note regarding the
pedestrian circulation down at the ground level, I have two things I think it would be nice if you could
work on a little bit more. At the bottom of the staircase, I appreciate that there's a large plaza there, and
it's great that we have wider sidewalks. I still don't see enough places to sit or enough landscaping at that corner where currently we have that restroom facility, and some trees, and some benches. Just an enormous number of people congregating around this area. Maybe in that area at the base of the stairs, somehow you could do something else to soften it a little bit. It would just feel a lot better that way. I think your idea of bringing the pedestrians through the parking garage is good, and I agree the way, the basic pattern you've done is really nice. It brings to mind, however, that the design of that bicycle
enclosure is now more critical than ever. If it's just a chain-link fence, it's just not very pleasant. I'm
wondering if you could show us -- or design for us -- something that really is attractive to walk past. At
the same time, it would be really nice to have something like bollards or a pattern on the pavement,
something that easily tells pedestrians where to go, so they do follow the path you've outlined, and gets
them over to that alley on the side. I think that will be a nice alley. I've said it several times through this
review process. The amount of people walking through that shortcut in the parking lot is huge. To
respect that, if you could make the path really clear. Make it so you're not afraid when your child is with
you that they're going to run into the cars, because there's such a clear delineation. Right now, it seems
to be a painted pattern. But bollards, even planters if you could get something to grow there, or benches, or anything to make it welcoming and public will be welcome.
I'd like to go on the record. I've said this several times and I think it's belaboring the point, but I think the 10-foot setback from the Thai Pan building is excessive. I don't think the public alleyway there is necessary or going to be successful at that width, and I think the building would be better with a five-
foot setback, either landscaped or used for surface parking. I think your technical needs could still be
accommodated with a five-foot setback and the whole building would be better off with the extra space. I
think that that decision has been made already, but I want to state my opinion on that. I do appreciate
the extra setback on Hamilton Avenue. I think that's important, and much appreciated, to line it up with
the AT&T building. Between that and widening the sidewalks, the building, as large as it is, will probably
be large enough. It will probably work okay. Wynne, I have more comments about the EIR. DO you want
to do that separately?
Chair Furth: No, let's do...Wait, yeah, let's do that last.
Mr. Hayes: Board Member Baltay...
Chair Furth: Don't let us forget to do the EIR comments when we finish this discussion.
Mr. Hayes: Through the Chair, may I have a follow-up question...
Vice Chair Baltay: Sure.
Mr. Hayes: ...on the first comment?
Chair Furth: Is your mic on?
Mr. Hayes: I think it is, yeah. Regarding your comment, your comparing the Waverly façade here, the
canopy, to the Walgreen's. You're talking about this canopy here? Can you see my cursor?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, exactly. The horizontal element.
Mr. Hayes: As a more significant element, you're talking about? It's five feet deep right now.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Vice Chair Baltay: Right. I can't quite tell how deep it is, but I'm really thinking it's substantial enough
that it gives you a sense of coverage as you're walking by.
Mr. Hayes: Walgreen's is a model that you prefer because it's probably eight feet deep, at least, I would
think. Right?
Vice Chair Baltay: I think, I want to phrase that differently, but I think it's an element that might help
reduce the impression of the height of the building, and focus your attention on the storefront, which is
what we want.
Mr. Hayes: Okay. But that is the element you were talking about. Okay. Thank you.
Vice Chair Baltay: Those are my comments, Wynne.
Chair Furth: Thank you. And you will remind me to get back to the CEQA issues. Thank you. I appreciate
the resubmittal. I'm pleased with the expanded bicycle parking. I'm pleased that you're addressing the
pedestrian experience. I echo the comments about the importance of that, and I hope when we see this
next time that some of what you show us can give us a good idea of the experience of pedestrians and
cyclists using this pass-through, what they'll see, what they'll experience. And, similarly, what the
sidewalk experience is on both Waverly and Hamilton. One of the things I can't tell, you know, it's so
misleading -- or interesting -- to look at the Waverly Street elevation, because nobody ever sees that.
What will I see from the sidewalk on either side of the street? I suppose as you're driving, maybe as you
near the church, maybe you can see the whole building as you look towards the hills? We can see the
view from over there, and at the sidewalk. I think the actual experience of walking down the streets is
very important in these buildings. I mean, the classic example being the President Hotel. Nobody's ever
aware of how high it is because they're too busy looking at what's going on at street level. I agree with Elizabeth Wong that this is a very big building. However, I do not want to have it open with good views of cars. I prefer that it be screened as you have. I don't have a strong feeling about the vertical element. I do agree with my colleagues that this building works much better -- at least in the drawings -- with the photovoltaic system on it because it gives it a top, and it gives it a lightness, which it completely lacks
otherwise. I think we're probably asking you to incorporate the superstructure, even if you don't get the -
- which is most of the expense, I expect -- even if you don't get the panels in. I have worked on the
other side of the City's feed-in tariff program and it's not easy. Certainly, that very high rate that the City
made available made the finances work in cases where it wouldn't otherwise, if you were simply looking
at the issue of what's the cheapest place to get electricity. I think that a major part of this element of the
project is an aesthetic one, and I hope to make that point to the City Council. On the art element, I think
we have seen a very unsuccessful attempt to use -- well, somewhat unsuccessful -- an attempt to use
topographic map contours. Myself, I don't want to celebrate the hillside with a contour map. This is the
former swamp that has been redeveloped as Palo Alto. We have our own interesting geologic character
and history. One of the weirdest things about the town is that the banks of the creek are the highpoint. And myself, if you're going to do this, I would like you to concentrate on downtown, and I would love a neon interactive element that shows us water intrusion over the next 50 years, decade by decade. That would be real public art. It would alert us to what is happening in our town, which [crosstalk] often. So, go for it. I mean, let's have powerful, dynamic, useful, beautiful public art with a message. Those are my
thoughts on that. One of the things I think I read in the staff report was that some of the reconfiguring
you did of parking spaces involved bringing them up to standard City width. Did I misread that? Some of
them were a little skinny before and now they're up to standard width? Or is that a complete
misunderstanding? When you had to do the reconfiguration.
Ms. French: We'll look at that and have that later.
Mr. Eggleston: I suspect we might be talking about existing spaces in the lot, rather than the garage...
Chair Furth: Oh, but that led to...
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Mr. Eggleston: ...but we'll verify that.
Chair Furth: You couldn't replace them one-for-one if you were doing that now.
Mr. Eggleston: Yes, and I believe we've always been planning to have the standard...
Chair Furth: It's a little ad hoc as it exists. Let's see what else I have in my notes.
Board Member Gooyer: While you're thinking of that, can I ask...
Chair Furth: Yes.
Board Member Gooyer: ...Peter a question? Your comment about the building and the width of the alleyway, if you want to call it. You're thinking of just shifting the entire building over to allow more space or setback on Hamilton?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes.
Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I'd like to go on the record, agreeing with that. I think you're absolutely
right. I mean, I think part of the concept was because of the windows at that existing building, but the
part that has always amazed me from the first time I saw it is, we're basically talking enormous windows
on a property line. And how those things were allowed to be built in the first place, I don't understand.
Because usually it's within -- what is it? -- three feet or five feet of a property line...Yeah, three feet.
That's what I thought. It has to be rated, or wire glass, and this kind of thing, and they're not. I think
because everybody anticipated years ago this will always be a parking lot, we can go ahead and just build
it and it's no big deal. But, you know, things change. If we're doing the 10 feet because of that visual
impact, or whatever, I don't think it's a valid point to use that as a criteria.
Chair Furth: I have a question for staff again, which is: To what extent is the width of that alley being
driven by your proposal to use it for relocating utilities?
Mr. Eggleston: I think the location of the utilities is a significant reason why we wouldn't be able to close the alley entirely.
Board Member Gooyer: Well, I'm not asking that.
Mr. Eggleston: Right. I think you're talking about Commissioner Baltay's suggestion of the five foot, right?
That, for us, I think is more of an issue with respect to two other issues. One is the openness for, I
believe the first two floors. That would not provide the openness that's required to not have mechanical
ventilation. We'd have to have mechanical ventilation on those floors, which could have a moderately
significant cost. I think the bigger impact even than that would be during construction, the fact that we're
having to build a basement level, and coming so close to another existing building, and the complexities
of having the shoring systems.
Chair Furth: You think you need a full 10 feet to avoid shoring?
Mr. Eggleston: With the subterranean excavation. Yes.
Chair Furth: I'm seeing a lot of nods from your staff.
Mr. Hayes: The big issue really is the technical requirements around the building code. We can't have more than 25 percent of that wall open at less than 10 feet to the property line. That is dictating that we have to be at least at 10 feet so that we can have unlimiting opening, so that we can avoid a mechanical ventilation system and avoid running it, you know...
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Chair Furth: That generates both noise and power use.
Mr. Hayes: Right. And I, you know, I really do believe...The more choices we have about how we move
around our communities, the more democratic we become. I think that that pedestrian alley is something
that is a good benefit. When you come down that stair, why force everybody down the CVS alley? Unless
you own stock in CVS and you want them to shop there. Give them a choice. They can go out to Waverly
via that pedestrian way. I feel pretty strong that it's needed for that reason, as well.
Chair Furth: We've heard a lot of rhetorical flourishes here.
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, well...
Chair Furth: That's quite something. More democratic to have that. Okay.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'll vote for Ken.
Chair Furth: Avoid shoring and permits natural ventilation. I must say, it was interesting reading bits and
pieces of the environmental -- meaning contamination -- study. What a lot of drycleaners we used to
have. Every corner. And they relocated so frequently, bringing their hazards with them. I do prefer the
altered Waverly frontage. I do think it was better not to try to echo the Thai Pan building. I never know
how long those buildings are going to be with us, and when it redevelops, it might seem quite odd to
have that. But, I think it looks better in its present iteration. Anything else anybody wants to say before
we go on to the environmental documents?
Mr. Hayes: Paving preference?
Chair Furth: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Hayes: The paving preference? There were a couple of ...
Chair Furth: I always feel that's like you putting bright, shiny objects in front of us so we don't think about the big issues. I prefer California grape to lilac vine. I don’t know what Alex will say. Anybody have opinions on paving materials? Nope?
Mr. Hayes: Okay.
Chair Furth: I think you're free to do what you think is best.
Mr. Hayes: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Environmental document comments. Thank you for providing it to us. We inadvertently got
paper copies of the whole thing, which in some ways is interesting. Seeing the graphics at that large
scale and being able to mark them up was great. I don't think I can imagine any situation under which
the traffic study fine details or the contamination study fine details are something I can apprehend. But,
thank you for the document. Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. On the EIR, I was wondering if we could modify slightly some of the phrasing on
page 92. This is where you're talking about the cultural impact and context of the building. It's actually
page 91, first. I think the first paragraph, you're referring to impacts to the, it says impacts to would be --
there's a typo in there -- but affecting the post office.
Chair Furth: This is the historic...
Vice Chair Baltay: Historic...
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Chair Furth: ...resources section of the summary.
Vice Chair Baltay: The gist of my comments is I think this building does have an impact on the post
office, and I don't think that's adequately addressed in here. I think the architect has mitigated those
impacts, but I think it needs to be discussed in a neutral and thorough way here. And then, on page 92...
Chair Furth: Before you go on, Peter...Oh, you're still on the same thing. Sorry. Go ahead.
Vice Chair Baltay: I underlined things on the, it says [reading] The design of the proposed garage
incorporates several architectural elements intended to make it an appropriate and compatible addition to the Palo Alto downtown area. This includes consideration of the total building height, the character of the ground floor facades, and building setbacks. I think the building is as tall as it can possibly be. I don't think it's doing anything to, special consideration for the area. I don't think that's a mitigation. It's implying that includes consideration of the height. It says further [reading]: The building will be 49 feet 10 inches below the citywide 50-foot height limit. That's not including the solar panels, again.
Chair Furth: That's not (inaudible).
Vice Chair Baltay: Push it up to 65 feet. [Reading] The proposed building will also have a lower height
than the building to the west, which is 75 feet tall. That's sort of an editorial comment. The gist of my
statements on all this is that the building is massive, and I don't think we should sugarcoat that and try
to say no, it's not actually that big. I think we do ourselves a disservice. And a big building, especially
across the street from probably the most important historic building in town, I think it's important to
acknowledge that. Further down, the third, fourth paragraph, the proposed project, etc. [Reading]
Furthermore, given the restrained height and compatible design... I don't think this building has a
restrained height.
Chair Furth: I think that's a fair statement.
Vice Chair Baltay: Those are just editorial adjustments, trying to get the report to be a little more thorough. The second comment I address -- and again, it's detailed and picky -- I'm looking at page 2 out of 5 of a tree report regarding the condition of the oaks. [Reading] The three Holly Oaks and one
Coast Live Oak tree were determined to be in good health condition. Fair enough. The trees are in need
of appropriate repruning, etc. Poor pruning in the past has contributed to Fair structures. I'd like to see
that last sentence just struck from the statement. The tree is in good health. Anybody who goes and
looks at it can see that. And we're going to mitigate the removal of the tree, but I don't think we should
try to spin it to say it's somehow not okay. Those are my comments on the EIR. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: I pretty much had no specific comments, but sort of the same concept of what
I've read, that you're trying to sugarcoat the size of this place. No matter what you do, you can't
sugarcoat that. It's huge. The reality is, we need the thing, so you have to just be a little bit more blunt
about stating that that's the requirement.
Chair Furth: From a CEQA point of view, the question is whether this adversely affects the post office. If it does, then we need to acknowledge that, and if the Council still wants to approve it, they make a statement of overriding considerations and say we understand it does this, but because of the other compelling reasons, we're going to go ahead and do it anyway.
Board Member Gooyer: Like I said, I don't think it adversely affects the post office, but it doesn't enhance
the post office. I mean it's...
Chair Furth: It's big.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Board Member Gooyer: It's big. Yeah, exactly.
Chair Furth: We're not calling for a finding of adverse impact under CEQA. We're simply saying that a
more accurate description would be -- It's a really big building and it doesn’t particularly complement the
post office's efforts of, you know, materials or, you know...I wanted to say that I think the extra-wide
sidewalk helps because it's not just the street width. I mean, one of the interesting things about this
setback is, it's not just some line on paper. It's a built line. So, intruding into that setback, that's a real
deal. When I was looking at, I think it was 1.5, one of the things it highlights is that a really important characteristic of a post office is it sits back from the street. It has garden in front of it, and that's a really important element of that kind of design. Of course, it makes it somewhat domestic and, you know, Mrs. Hoover said we're not having one of those federal buildings in our town, so ours is the only non-federal WPA post office in the country. One of the key elements of that was you put a garden in front of it, and
you see that in a lot of civic buildings all over California -- courthouses, post offices, whatever -- often
with roses in the says when we still had gardeners. Ours is more interesting than roses. Actually, it's a
mass of weed trees right now. When I look at this, I was thinking, how would I make a sympathetic,
supportive building across the way? I would set it back as far as I could so that I could have a similar
stepping-back to another civic building. And then, do whatever I was going to do. I think it's unfortunate
that we can't do that here, that we are under these constraints that push it forward. If mechanical lifts
made it possible to do something else, that would be great, but that is not something we need to deal
with. I am happy that you are thinking about wayfinding/space-finding technology for the building given
its design, which includes a lot of, kind of closed-ins. I am curious as to how we'll signal to people who
don't use them all the time where the pedestrian entrance is along Hamilton, that will signal that here is the point of entry for bikes and people. I think that's important. And I think that's it for me. Anything else from anybody?
Vice Chair Baltay: You might consider adding in the EIR a statement about the sidewalks becoming wider. I think that's easily missed in all this analysis that both...
Chair Furth: And it's important.
Vice Chair Baltay: ...on Hamilton and Waverly, the widened sidewalks actually do one thing towards
helping the historic building across the street. It just gives you a little more space to have that civic
breathing room Wynne just described for us.
Chair Furth: Also, I think you have, particularly in your revised design, you have a really strong upside for
cyclists, which I hope you emphasize. This is a very bike parking-short space. You've heard me complain
about parking in the ivy, which shouldn't be there anyway. It's a rat habitat. It's Algerian Ivy. But, you
really, this is not, other than it's nice trees, this is not -- and it's convenient -- this is not a great civic
space. We've got problems with trash enclosures, we've got problems with inadequate parking, we've got
old pavement, we've got, I would say badly constrained trees. You're adding elements that are really improving this corner. We're going to have healthier and bigger trees, we're going to have much better bike accommodation, we're going to have much better sidewalks. This has some really non-parking upsides, which I hope you emphasize. Thank you. Anything from anybody? All right. Would you like us to continue this to a date certain?
Ms. French: We would request the date certain be July 19th, rather than July 5th.
Chair Furth: All right. I will say one other thing, which is that this is a very big project. I think it merits a
very big sign on the existing parking lot so the general public is aware of this. We are using a sign about
the same size as the one we use for a Verizon antenna. There is no comparison in the scope of the
project, so I would suggest that this is a project worth trying to get people to come out for, and we have
not succeeded in that, except for people who have very clear interest in the area. All right.
MOTION
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Chair Furth: I would entertain a motion to continue this matter to July 19th.
Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this matter to July 19th.
Chair Furth: Is there a second, Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Second.
Chair Furth: All in favor say aye. And there is no opposition. We are done.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0.
Chair Furth: Would we still be having a meeting on July 5th? We're anticipating a board meeting on July 5th.
Ms. French: There is an item already advertised for that meeting. It will be a short meeting.
Chair Furth: So the answer is yes.
Ms. French: Yes.
Chair Furth: All right. Anything else? We are adjourned. Thank you. Sorry, we're not adjourned, we have
two items. I am really out to lunch. Beg your pardon. I little over-focused here. We will take a five-
minute break, and then we'll get on with the rest of our agenda.
[The Board took a short break.]
Chair Furth: Okay, we are reconvened to deal with two other important items. But the scale is different.
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00054]: Request
for Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit for Shake Shack restaurant to
allow for exterior facade improvements and to allow for the sale of alcoholic
beverages in an existing tenant space at the Stanford Shopping Center.
Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Furth: The first one is a public hearing, a quasi-judicial hearing. The address is 180 El Camino Real,
otherwise known as the Stanford Shopping Center. This is a request for our comments on the
architectural review and conditional use permit for Shake Shack restaurant, to allow for exterior façade
improvements and to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages -- not our concern -- in an existing tenant
space. This is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, again, because of its small scale.
Perhaps a more understandable way of identifying its location is it's proposed to go next to P.F. Chang's,
where Wells Fargo used to have a branch. Staff?
Mr. Gutierrez: Good morning.
Chair Furth: Excuse me. Has everybody been do the site? Yes?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes.
Chair Furth: Does anybody have any outside conversations to report?
Vice Chair Baltay: No.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Chair Furth: Nor do I. All right. Excuse me. Go ahead.
Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning, Board. My name is Samuel Gutierrez. I'm the project
planner for this project, and as Chair Furth just said, this is located at 180 El Camino, which is the
Stanford Shopping Center. It is the tenant space that is directly adjacent to the P.F. Chang's restaurant,
which current faces El Camino, near the intersection of El Camino and Quarry Road. This is the former
location of Wells Fargo Bank. From my understanding they are no longer operating there. I think they
just recently moved out. Moving into the presentation here, you can see a rendering of the proposed changes to this tenant space along the exterior here. I noted in the staff report that it would be facing the parking lot side because the other tenant facades face the Quarry Road side. This is the broader side that actually faces the large parking lot area of the Stanford Shopping Center, right there along El Camino. These are the existing conditions. You can see the Wells Fargo ATMs there. The way that the
façade looks on the upper left corner there, and the upper right corner, you can see that that building --
noted as Building W -- right along that intersection point of Quarry and El Camino, that's where this
tenant space is located. The lower left photo there shows you the view from Quarry Road, and that's
even during the fall when that kind of plaza with the trees there doesn't have the foliage visible. It's
difficult to even see that, but it still faces a public right-of-way. The lower photo on the right, you can
actually see that side of the façade from that little parking lot area that's kind of tucked away there. It
looks like a façade that would be suitable for a bank but, of course, that's going to change with this
proposed use. We move into the project overview. The project is located within a standalone building
there, with two tenant spaces, as I mentioned. The new façade involves some new materials, colors, and
new windows. The change of use is going from financial services to eating and drinking services, the bank over to a restaurant use. And, because of that, as a result, there's a need for a much larger trash room than what was needed for the bank. New outdoor seating. That is associated with the covered patio area that exist there. They will be slightly modified, but for the most part, that is the existing area that wasn't utilized by the Wells Fargo bank. New signage. Some landscaping will go in, and also, to
accommodate some of the access to the trash room, the parking requirement will change overall for the
site. In addition to that, the covered outdoor seating area will modify the required parking for the site,
which I'll go into later in the presentation. Just to briefly touch on the Stanford Shopping Center review
process, we do have a review process for the Stanford Shopping Center for standalone buildings and
exterior-facing tenant spaces. That means any tenant space that faces the public right-of-way. This is
within a standalone building, so it does need to go through an entitlement process. If it were to be
actually looked at in a larger section of the mall, this tenant space is still over the 35 feet in width, so it
still needs to go to a planning entitlement. But, of course, this is a standalone building, so that's why
we're here before the Board today to get your comments. Just to touch on the context of the mall, of
course, there is a large amount of variation between all of the tenant spaces, as you can see in this photo. Outdoor seating areas are very common for the existing restaurants there, so it makes sense that they are proposing one for this project. You can see a different window for the different facades, the different retail stores that are existing in the mall. This project is actually proposing adding more windows to it, bringing it pretty consistent with what we expect of the shopping center. As we move forward,
we're going to discuss the trash room requirement. Why does it need a trash room? Well, the eating and
drinking use will require a lot more volume in trash room capacity than the previous financial services
use. The Wells Fargo bank pretty much just generated paper, while this is going to be a combination of
cardboard, paper, trash that can't be recycled, and compost. And then, of course, used grease. They do
need to create one where there wasn't one previously. This is showing the location where this is going to
be proposed, where currently there are some windows. I believe it's some back offices for the Wells
Fargo bank that was there before. They're going to fill that in and create this trash room there. You can
see two options for the trash room, one having a burger logo, the other mimicking what they propose the
façade to have, which are these kind of moss and wood panels. The trash room doors would be painted
to match that. You have to understand that the trash room itself needs free access at all times for when
they do pickups. Currently, there are parking spaces located directly in front of the façade, in that section, so they do need to remove some parking spaces. The burger logo in particular was proposed because in the adjacent space to the P.F. Chang's, you'll see that there's a little bonsai tree metal panel decoration. It kind of takes that hard steel door and softens it up and makes it blend better with the
façade, so that's where those options came from. Circling back to the parking, you see here on the top,
City of Palo Alto Page 22
that's the existing condition there, kind of a circled area. They have two accessible spaces there. And
then, on the proposed design, those accessible spaces have moved over to the left of that tree planter,
and there's a new area that's been created for no parking. That's directly in front of the proposed trash
room, so trash services could come and pick up the trash freely without worrying about customers
throughout the day. That's also the same set-up that's for the adjacent P.F. Chang's trash room. That
resulted in a loss of two spaces there to create this free access area for the trash room. The other thing
to note is that the Stanford Shopping Center has a one parking space per 275 square feet parking ratio, and the covered outdoor seating areas count toward the parking requirement. They don't necessarily count towards the overall square footage limitation of the shopping center, but for parking, it does count because it is new service area that is covered. That wasn't previously included in the overall parking count because the Wells Fargo bank did not use that to conduct any service. It was just a refuge area, so it didn't get counted. We did count it this time, and the new outdoor seating area does result in three
additional parking spaces. However, the shopping center does have enough excess parking to readily
account for the increase in parking requirement. There is some landscaping proposed. They circle around
the building, and it's actually adding more landscaping to this building at this end, which is a nice
amenity. It does contribute to the pedestrian environment that the shopping center is going for, and is
known for, I should say. However, staff does see that some of the planting here is not exactly meeting
the findings per the ARB for local and indigenous plants. But, there is another conflict there because the
shopping center does have a theme overall for planting, so it's kind of a fusion of the two, the greater
City requirements, and then, this overall theme that the shopping center was approved to have. They did
propose a good range of plants that do work well with the shopping center, and you can see how it goes around the seating area where previously there wasn't any planting, with the Wells Fargo bank. That does add more greenery to the area. Moving forward, as I said, it does not exactly meet the ARB requirements, but it does have two plants that are suited for our climate zone. But, staff would appreciate ARB's comments on landscaping to see how we could address this now and in the future at
the Stanford Shopping Center, being that there is kind of a theme to follow at the shopping center, but
we also have the ARB findings. They do have some plants that align with ARB findings. However, staff
seeks the ARB's guidance on future projects and this one, on how much planting should be consistent
with local and indigenous and suitable habitats for wildlife. Moving forward, there are two signs being
proposed. They are proposed over the covered patios on both sides of the tenant space. They are
individual channel letters with an associated burger logo. The burger logo is green. They are internally
illuminated channel letters. We do have a master tenant façade sign program for the Stanford Shopping
Center. However, it does not apply here. It is a standalone building and standalone buildings need to
follow the general municipal code regulations for signage. However, we do try to steer it towards what's
consistent at the shopping center so you don't have signage that is random for the standalone buildings, and then, as you go into the greater shopping center, you see different signs. We try to blend it as much as we can there. We do seek ARB's comments and recommendations on the options I showed you for the trash room because the burger logo, as I said earlier, will count towards the signage area limitation for that façade. Of course, the other option would be to match the façade design, so there would be no sign
counting there. This is just an overview of the wall sign area. The reason this was included is because the
El Camino Design Guidelines do apply. However, they're doing minimal work to the exterior area, so there
is no need to increase the sidewalk. They're not building a new building. There is that 12-foot
requirement for the El Camino Design Guidelines. But, what would apply from those design guidelines
would be the sign reduction in size. On the bottom row of this table, it includes some information about
the burger logo and the trash room doors. It's basically stating if we do go with that option, it would have
to be slightly reduced to meet the El Camino Design Guidelines requirement for signage on El Camino. It
would be rather simple to do that. The burger logo would just need to be reduced by a couple percent to
meet that requirement. Here are the signs. One I noted as Sign A, and that's the sign that would be over
the façade facing the parking lot, as I noted earlier, the broader one that had the Wells Fargo ATMs. Sign
B would be the sign over the covered patio area that faces the grove of trees and Quarry Road. Sign B is actually smaller, as you can see here. It is a smaller area than the other tenant façade space with the larger covered patio, so they did reduce that in size. Also, that façade area is small overall, so the percentage allowed for signage goes down. Staff recommends to the ARB the following actions:
Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment,
based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we ask for the applicant to speak? All right. Who is
speaking for the applicant today?
Jason Smith, Land Shark Development: Chair Furth, Board members.
Chair Furth: Good morning.
Mr. Smith: Good morning. Pleasure to be back in front of you once again. Sorry to hear about the North
Face project. We'll get past that.
Chair Furth: That's just us.
Mr. Smith: Today, here, of course, we have the Shake Shack project in front of you at the corner of El Camino Real. I have with me our design architect, here to speak on behalf of the project. Should you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer those.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Smith: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Good morning. You have about nine minutes.
Justin Kyle, Michael Hus Office of Architecture: Good morning. All right, sounds great. Good morning,
Chair Furth and members of the council. I'll be representing the design team for this presentation. I'm
Justin Kyle, Michael Hus Office of Architecture in Austin, Texas.
Chair Furth: Our minutes are transcribed, so we need to have you spell your name.
Mr. Kyle: [Spells name]
Chair Furth: Thanks. You'd be amazed how many different ways people spell their name.
Mr. Kyle: I believe our planner gave a good representation of the project so far. I'll be speaking about
some of the design features on the exterior façade as we move forward here. This is the existing condition of the building as is. What we're looking at doing is adapting this building with the Shake Shack standards that we use for plenty of projects across the states, taking those features and elements and trying to do our best job of blending it in with the unique features, within the context of Palo Alto. At this
location, what we are going to be is be removing the ivy in order to repaint the façade, and also repaint
the trellis, as well. In no aspect are we considering removing the ivy entirely. We would like to encourage
the ivy to grow back eventually. I just want to point that out as we have these images up here, with the
Wells Fargo building as is. I'm going to try to get to the renders. Here we go. This façade is the north
façade facing the parking lot. What we are proposing here is repainting the façade black or a dark gray
and iron ore. The reason for this move is that typically, as part of the Shake Shack standard, they have
an ATAS corrugated metal panel as part of their aesthetic feature. It's on many Shake Shack throughout.
On the interior of those we also have the Shack itself. The ordering counter is covered in that ATAS
metal. Because we don't want to necessarily use that in this space because we want to blend more in
with the Palo Alto context, we're looking at instead using that same color and applying it to the existing
brick. We're not covering any ATAS metal here on this façade, or at least on this portion of the façade. Also, we're going to be using a cedar board-and-batten cladding system that will be adjacent to the storefront here, not only to mimic this corrugated metal façade that we've used at other locations, but also, again, to blend in with the featured elements in the Palo Alto context. On this façade, we are going to be removing the existing trellis and replace it with a very similar trellis. The reason for this is to be
more in line with the other designs we've used for Shake Shack. Also as a design feature, we will be
removing portions of the existing brick façade. The reason for this is that this façade in this particular at
this location currently has ATM machines there, not necessary for a Shake Shack. So, we will be removing
City of Palo Alto Page 24
that portion and bringing in new storefront. As our planner reviewed, there are plenty of precedents in
other mall locations for more storefront on these facades, so we are being more in line there. Also, as a
result of this, we're going to be blending more of this interior/exterior and connecting our patio spaces
with our interior dining space more clearly. As a tradeoff as well, this portion back here on this building is
our back-of-house area. We don't want glazing in that location, so we're more or less moving the glazing
from this location over to our front-of-house area. On the other side facing the park, we're going to keep
that existing trellis. It continues and ties into the trellis covering the P.F. Chang area, which is our adjacent building. We will be removing the ivy temporarily along these concrete columns to repaint the concrete columns, but as you can see in this render, the expectation is that the ivy will be growing back eventually. We also will be expanding planter areas to not only capture this patio space, give it more of an intimate eating area adjacent to our front-of-house dining area, but also those planters we will be replanting with the same ivy to encourage it to grow back. Growing back onto the trellis, the columns,
definitely, and also the ivy from the adjacent P.F. Chang's building, to growing onto our building, as well.
We'll also be tying in with the general ecofriendly and encouraging growth and plantings in this area. You
can see also that we're bringing the façade elements of the cedar board and batten around on this side,
as well. An interesting aspect of this which is much more clear in our exterior elevations is we have a
notched façade movement along these battens, so that we're creating this thin condition that comes at
an angle, trying to mimic some of the moves that we have used in other Shake Shack locations, with
moving the corrugated siding and various angles to encourage movement along the façade. That's
primarily the design features that we're recommending for this location. Also on the interior, as well,
we're presenting a very interesting feature element for the ceiling. It's a diamond-shaped pattern also using cedar. It's a fairly dynamic ceiling component integrated with lighting features, as well. We're looking at a tiered stepped system, not only to bring something dynamic and interesting into the space, but also trying to mimic some of these strong canopies from the local parks and area in general. That is pretty much most of the design notes that we are recommending for this location. If you have any
questions?
Chair Furth: Any questions of the applicant? Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. A couple questions for you. The vertical cedar boards, I guess I'm reading the
plans right, but it seems like they are one-by-sixes projecting vertically away with a one-by-eight
between them.
Mr. Kyle: Yes.
Vice Chair Baltay: And there's no overlap of the boards, so we have batten that covers a board on a
board-and-batten siding. Is that right? They're just fastened next to each other?
Mr. Kyle: It's lesser board-and-batten and more of plank siding, with the individual -- There should be a
detail in there, as well -- with the individual battens running in between the boards themselves. We're not applying the battens directly on top of the boards, but they're going to be a board, then a batten, then a board, then a batten.
Vice Chair Baltay: And then, what is the finish on the wood?
Mr. Kyle: What is the finish?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah.
Mr. Kyle: We're doing a clear seal.
Vice Chair Baltay: A clear seal finish. Is there anything on top of the...? You have the end grain of these
boards then exposed to the elements. What protects that?
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Mr. Kyle: We're showing a steel member that will be running horizontally along the top of the façade
element. We're also separating the board-and-batten system slightly from the face of the brick at those
locations, and then, tying into the brick using that system.
Vice Chair Baltay: You said there's a steel element that the cap of the wood trim pieces...? I don't see
that on your renderings. Am I missing something?
Mr. Kyle: It's a very small steel element. We introduce it as we're working through design development,
working with the architect of record on this. At this detail here, the storefront at the head, you can see that element expressed there.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Can you explain more about this notch you're talking about in the wood?
Mr. Kyle: Yes.
Vice Chair Baltay: I see that, in the plans, just seems to be a (inaudible) for a notch at an angle.
Mr. Kyle: It's a very subtle detail. Let's see if it's expressed. Here. There's a dashed line here representing
that.
Vice Chair Baltay: Right.
Mr. Kyle: And what's happening is that we're taking the one-by-six and we're cutting a notch at an angle,
about 45 degrees. Where this line crosses that batten, there will be a slight notch taken out. We're taking
about half of the material of the wood out in that notch, so it creates this dynamic fin profile. That fin
gets lower as this line continues along the façade.
Vice Chair Baltay: Have you used this material on other Shake Shack locations?
Mr. Kyle: The cedar?
Vice Chair Baltay: The cedar vertical batten system.
Mr. Kyle: Typically we use it interior. We use kind of reclaimed wood or interesting dynamic wood systems for feature walls. It typically has been used for interior locations.
Vice Chair Baltay: Have you used it on an exterior location.
Mr. Kyle: We've used exterior cedar for multiple projects in the Austin area, and in other areas, as well.
This is unique for Shake Shack due to the Palo Alto context.
Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Other questions regarding the trash room door. Does the applicant have a
preference?
Mr. Kyle: Our preference would be to use a Shake Shack logo for the burger sign right there.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Is there any member of the public...? Do you have questions? Any member of the public who
would wish to comment on this project at this time? Having no comment cards and seeing no one, I'll
bring it back to us. Thank you. Okay. You have...?
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm sorry to keep coming at you. I'm wondering if you could explain about the
landscaping at the prow -- I'll call it -- of the building. The sharp point. If I'm reading the plans correctly, it seems that there's a whole bunch of lavender put around that. Is that correct?
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Mr. Kyle: Yes. Do you want to speak to that?
Vice Chair Baltay: This rendering here, that's good, yeah. Most of that is...
Chair Furth: (inaudible)
Vice Chair Baltay: ...a lavender field?
Mr. Kyle: Yes. I'm trying to encourage some kind of a planting that would be appropriate for that
location. This was designed by the architect of record for that portion. We've been primarily focused on
the exterior façade itself.
Vice Chair Baltay: Has anybody investigated the...? Lavender, as I understand it, attracts bees, which might not be desirable next to a burger joint.
Mr. Kyle: That's a good point.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. It was just a question.
Mr. Kyle: We will review that with the architect of record.
Chair Furth: Also to confirm, the preserved green moss wall involves dead plants, not live plants. Right?
Mr. Kyle: They are preserved moss panels, yes.
Chair Furth: It's landscaping in the same sense that cedar is. Thank you.
Mr. Kyle: All right.
Chair Furth: Who went first last time? It's your turn. Okay. Go for it.
Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you for your presentation. I'll confess, at first, I just wrote down "looks
great." As I've heard you explain to me more of the details, I have serious reservations about your use of
the wood on the outside, and the way you're using it. The wood will expand and contract, so every joint,
where you have these butt-jointed things will just open up. The wood will get wet on the top, and cedar especially, especially the cedar available these days, will decay. Within a few years, it will look really ratty. It just won't be attractive at all. I really encourage you to think of a way to get the aesthetic effect you want without having something that's so fragile, really. This type of cedar, a clear finish is the least-
strong finish on a wood that's one of the least-strong woods. And this application, where it's exposed to
weather very directly, I think you'll find it just embarrassing after a year or two. I think Stanford will find
that...You don't see this too much around the shopping center. Usually there are more durable, higher-
level materials, so I think you should really reconsider that choice of finish. I pulled up an image from the
Shake Shack website. Same logo, same typeface, it looks great. It's right behind a brick façade, which
has got a slightly industrial character to it. It seems to me that you have a really nice brick façade here,
which is a very solid, durable material. Is there any way you could just stain that, or change the color of
it, or something? You might find an easier, much more durable way to get the same effect. In any case,
just looking at that. My bigger concern is that I think you should try to get more seating or some sort of
pedestrian spot at the prow of the building, where you're showing a bunch of lavender. My favorite part
about the Stanford Shopping Center is these wonderful seating areas, this wonderful landscaping. It's just really a pleasant place to sit and meet somebody to have a conversation. And this is a real opportunity to introduce that on, it's a fairly busy pedestrian thoroughfare diagonally out to El Camino. When I was out there last weekend, I could barely find a place to park. I was jostling around at this corner. There's a lot of people going around there. If you could introduce some small-scale public
seating, benches, friendly planters with flowers that pick up on what's being done in the shopping center,
I think it would be a really attractive amenity. People who are waiting for a table at the restaurant,
City of Palo Alto Page 27
perhaps. What you're showing is just a bunch of lavender. Lavender is sort of a hot, dusty plant with
bees around it. That's fine when you're out in wine country or something, but I don't think it's the right
choice here. I'd like to see if you could get a little more focus on the pedestrian aspect at the corner of
the building, and your landscaping and surface treatment. It's not a big deal. It could even come back on
consent, but I think it needs to be looked at. The last thing, staff has asked us to comment on the door
of the trash room enclosure. I don't know what to say. If you guys want to paint your logo on the door,
it's fine with me. I think it's your choice. I think, again, putting the cedar slats on there is going to be a durability issue, especially with the trash room. Within a week, it will get banged up. When I was out there, that door is very non-noticeable. It's off to the side. You really have to look hard to find it, even at the very edge of the parking lot. Maybe we're making too big a deal out of it. My preference would be that you really focus on the prow of the building and the public interaction with it there. It's a real opportunity to make something special. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Robert.
Board Member Gooyer: Okay. One advantage about going second, I thought I'd...When I first saw this,
I've used the facilities in New York, I like the food, great, good addition to the neighborhood, so to
speak. But, I agree completely. I've gotten the reputation of being a curmudgeon on this panel, or the
naysayer, but I have to agree completely. The wood, I just have a real fear. I just don't think...I mean,
that's one of these things, and you see it so often with residences, where they use rough wood or
unfinished wood, things like that. It looks great for the first six months, and then it's going to go downhill
real fast. You've got a brick façade that has lasted well. I understand you might not want the beige brick,
but the thing is, that doesn't mean you can't modify the finish or the texture or the color of that brick. I agree that you could make it a much, sort of an edgier color or look to the brick, and it's already finished for you. I have no problem with the signage, that sort of thing. I also have to agree that this area, you know, if you're not familiar with it, is very popular. I didn't think so at first, but that diagonal across is a very heavily-trafficked area. And just putting some groundcover basically there, I think you're depriving
yourself of the opportunity of having a whole lot more seating there, and opportunities for people to
meet. The one nice thing about doing this in a shopping center which you don't have in another situation,
where if all of a sudden you need five more parking spaces, it's not like, oh, we're stuck, we can't do
that, because having seen the numbers, there is sufficient that you could go back and say, look, we need
three more parking spaces, and that's a doable thing. That's the benefit of that. So, I pretty much have
to mimic everything, other than the fact that I don't like the logo on the garbage. To me, those things
ought to just disappear. You make them blend in or make them as non-obvious as possible. Other than
that, I have to agree with Peter on this.
Chair Furth: All right. Well, thank you for your presentation. I have not patronized your building yet, but
it was nice of you...somebody included the menu in the agenda packet, so that let us know what we're talking about. I know this site well, too. The fact that Building M exists at all is because of an effort to transform the shopping center, pull it out towards El Camino, pull it out towards our very big, heavily-traveled transit center, which is across the street. Stanford and the City have both put a lot of energy and money into that, moving utilities and building accessible paths and walkways, which is important to keep
building on. Stanford, the shopping center has provided a really attractive seating area over towards
Quarry Road. I'm always bugging them. One of the findings we're supposed to make is that there is
adequate seating and amenities for people coming to the business, walking by the business, and working
at the business. Whenever I see workers sitting on stand pipes for their lunch break, I know you haven't
met that standard. This clearly is a place that can be used for that, among other things. However, I agree
that there is a bench shortage at the moment on that access because I saw customers sitting on the
curb, parking curb, to make phone calls. Because between the lovely seating right out at the corner of
Quarry and El Camino, in that sort of wooded area you have, and the bench right in front of P.F. Chang's,
there is nothing until you get to Terrain, and that is too far to have no seating. There's lots of spaces it
could go. It might be in your triangle, it might be, if you and your landlord prefer, further out, but I agree
that we do need pedestrian-friendly seating, which means arm rails, somewhere in addition on that site to support that aspect of it. At this time of year, it's a very heavily-wooded area in a nice, open, light
City of Palo Alto Page 28
way. What do you think the existing vine on that building is? It kind of looked like Virginia Creeper, but I
don't know.
Mr. Kyle: I think that would be a good guess, yes.
Chair Furth: Okay. I don't think there's ivy. And I would certainly be in favor of maintaining that, whether
it's a...We know it thrives in this area. I don't know how it is for habitat support. I do not believe it's a
local, indigenous plant, but it's an existing, important element of the success of that area, and I think I
would support keeping it for that reason. I can't make the same argument for your other plant choices. Berkeley sedge is European. It's a misleading name. And in looking at the plants that you have there, I understand...It's great landscaping there, and I understand you want to keep the theme going, but I believe there are plants that would meet our criteria of being good habitat plants and good local plants
and give you the same aesthetic effects as the one you have here. The East Bay Regional Park District
has a good list prepared by Bart O'Brien, and there are other resources that could help on that, because I
couldn't make the landscape findings yet. I'm fine with having dried moss as part of your building
materials if you want them to be part of your building materials. It raises the issue of maintenance and
how long they last, but I do not consider it a garden element. I keep bringing up my family. I've made a
lot of wreaths with dead moss, but that is not landscaping. With respect to the trash enclosure, I say no
to the burger logo. I think it's aesthetically unfortunate in that location. I think P.F. Chang's bonsai, which
is a really elegant piece of metal work, I mean, it's two doors, and they fit together beautifully. They've
got a very wide thing, it fits well, it doesn't suggest P.F. Chang's as a business. It's not a sign, in my
opinion. This would be, and I think it's unfortunate, and I think aesthetically, it doesn't work. I would
suggest not doing that. Do you have responses to our comments?
Mr. Kyle: Yes. Concerning the wood, is it the cedar specifically, or is it wood in general on the façade that raises the issue.
Vice Chair Baltay: Well, cedar specifically, but wood in general I think will wear poorly. Even if you use IPA with really good metal flashing, you're going to have to finish it very frequently. Unless you can really
have a design intent...I'll segue a little bit. We approved a synagogue a number of years back now,
where the architect wanted wood on the surface, and he argued that the wood was going to weather in a
way that was part of the design concept. That, I thought was a very successful use of the wood, to
accept the fact that it will change. I think you have to make that argument here, that any wood you use
on the façade is going to weather. It's a very strong sunshine on the façade of that building. Stanford has
-- and Palo Alto insists on -- a very high level of aesthetic quality. Weathered wood is generally not that.
It's a long answer to say probably steer away from wood.
Mr. Kyle: And in defense, one of the reasons why we went with a material that wasn't the brick for this
portion is where we're replacing the storefront with solid paneling with the wood, we didn't want to try to
attempt to match the exact same kind of brick there. Granted, we are painting it. We can look at other options for a more durable material at those locations.
Vice Chair Baltay: While you were talking I pulled up the Shake Shack website. There are about a half-dozen photos there, one of them of the Shake Shack logo against a brick background, which is exactly the same layout as what you have. It's just a different color brick. Is there a way just to change the color
of the existing brick? That seems to me a simple solution.
Mr. Kyle: We are recommending painting it. Yes, we can look at options for using brick.
Vice Chair Baltay: It's just an idea for you. I mean, you're the architect, but clients like that kind of thing.
Mr. Kyle: Okay. We can definitely take a look at that.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Vice Chair Baltay: Our question to you really is, we need to decide if this is something that can be
approved on a consent calendar, or if it has to come back, and how much time, and what changes you
think you're willing to make. What do you think? Don't mean to put you on the spot, but...
Mr. Kyle: I think we'll probably have to review the material palate to see if we could replace it with
something more durable.
Vice Chair Baltay: You need some time to think it through.
Mr. Kyle: Yeah.
Board Member Gooyer: I hate to say it, but I think it needs to come back.
Vice Chair Baltay: I do, too, but I wanted to hear what...
Mr. Kyle: Is this something that we could work with staff on?
Board Member Gooyer: Sure, you can, and we can probably make it a date certain, but I think it's still
something we'll want to see because we're talking a major concept change. I mean, the brick, or you put
some other face, I think it makes quite a change.
Chair Furth: Let me ask my colleagues and the applicant, to what extent are you retaining the existing
materials and painting them, and to what extent are you removing them and replacing them? On the two
facades.
Mr. Kyle: To the extent that, from the top of the storefront to the base of the storefront, we're looking at
either covering the existing brick at the locations where we're retaining the existing brick, or covering
that with this wood element that we're seeing here. Or, we will be replacing that existing storefront with
the wood elements, as well. Past that, everything above that, we're recommending mostly to be painted
brick, or painted the corner [crosstalk].
Chair Furth: You're painting the existing brick, or you would be...?
Mr. Kyle: Painting the existing brick, yes.
Chair Furth: You would be retaining that.
Mr. Kyle: Yes.
Chair Furth: Which we like.
Vice Chair Baltay: Is it possible for you folks to address our reservations about the landscaping and
possible seating at the front of the building? Is that something that we can expect to see coming back to
us?
Mr. Kyle: Yes. We can definitely look at that, as well.
Mr. Smith: I know there had expressed some concerns about extending the patio seating out to the front.
I'm not sure if (inaudible) indicated. This would be more of a waiting area.
Vice Chair Baltay: Absolutely. It's not dining area, it's not part of your facility. It's a public amenity.
Mr. Smith: Public. Okay, yeah, because increasing the patio out there created a security issue, to be able
to maintain that. But as far as the seating was concerned, they had looked at the adjacent park area and thought it would be sufficient to provide any type of a waiting area. But, it sounds like maybe not in this
City of Palo Alto Page 30
area, as it may potentially be an issue, but maybe some benches along that area provided on the
property.
Chair Furth: Well, one of the things that I think is an issue, and I know there is a tension between the
landlord and the master tenant, about the issue of having seating where you don't want it and having
seating where we think you need it. And there is a consensus that you need more, that there's this big...
First, there is an opportunity. The people are there, and they're leaning against trees, or they're sitting on
the curb, or they're...And these are your employees and customers, and they need more seating. You have become so popular that what was originally provided is not enough. I think you have a lot of choices as to where to put it along that access. In my view, it doesn't necessarily have to be in that triangle. I think there's consensus on that. But, we need to see more. If not more, somewhere nearby.
Mr. Kyle: Understood, and we'll...
Chair Furth: And highly visible, I'm sure you're going to want, and beautiful, and all that. And then, I
personally think you need to provide plants that triangulate between our standards that require that they
be suitable for growing here, indigenous if possible, and provide good habitat. I think that some of the
choices here could easily be made differently. We went through some of these, substituting some of
these very particular plants out of an earlier proposal. They are popular with landscape architects.
Mr. Smith: And then, that's where this palate initially came from, is a past approval...
Chair Furth: Exactly.
[crosstalk]
Mr. Smith: ...taking that palate and [crosstalk]...
Chair Furth: We have moved the goal posts. Definitely.
Mr. Smith: Correct.
Chair Furth: We're putting a bigger emphasis on the fact that the plants we traditionally asked for are not thriving as well in our changing climate. That we are in more periods of prolonged drought, and as we become ever more urbanized, trying to keep our population of butterflies and birds and, to an occasion,
bees, but they're...not honeybees by a restaurant. Need support, too.
Mr. Smith: Understood.
Mr. Kyle: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thanks. And, of course, you have that great big property with a lot of wonderful plants on it,
so, you're an important resource for us all.
Mr. Kyle: Thank you so much.
Chair Furth: Would you like us to continue this to a date certain? What do you want to do, staff?
Mr. Owen: I think it depends on how much time the applicant requires to turn around another plan.
Chair Furth: When would you like to come back?
Mr. Kyle: I'll have to review with my design team.
Chair Furth: We could do a date uncertain, if you prefer.
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, I think July 19th.
Chair Furth: Why don't we continue it to a date uncertain and you can re-advertise when you're sure
what you're comfortable with. I don't think that should hold you up, right? (inaudible) staff.
Board Member Gooyer: And you can still work out the nearest possible date for you, but then it works for
you, and you're not stuck with something in case something comes up.
Mr. Owen: Just as a reminder, the tentative calendar right now is pretty minimal right now in terms of
the number of items that we have in the next couple of hearings. We would need to re-notice the application...
Board Member Gooyer: That's why we're saying a date uncertain is probably (inaudible).
Chair Furth: Maybe we should continue it to July 19th and bump it if necessary, because it could get
caught up in the noticing deadline.
MOTION
Chair Furth: I would entertain a motion to continue this item to July 19th.
Board Member Gooyer: I move that we continue this to a date certain of July 19th.
Chair Furth: Is there a second?
Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second that.
Chair Furth: All those in favor, aye? It's approved.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0.
Chair Furth: We'll see you on the 19th unless you talk with staff and pick another date. Thank you.
Mr. Kyle: One more item. Just confirm with the Board, is it the consensus that we do not want a Shake
Shack logo of the burger on the trash door?
Chair Furth: You have a 2-to-1 split on that.
Board Member Gooyer: Theoretically, you might take a shot. There's going to be five of us, but...
Chair Furth: You know where two of us are.
Mr. Kyle: Right, sounds great.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Kyle: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Bye bye.
Chair Furth: We will take a two-minute break.
[The Board took a short break.]
City of Palo Alto Page 32
4. 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: An Addendum to the Mayfield Development 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: We are on agenda item number 4. This is a public hearing. It is quasi-judicial, so I'm going to ask you if you've had any external conversations. It's at 3406 Hillview Avenue, which is the corner of
Hillview and Coyote, is that right? It's a 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 82,000 square foot office/R&D building. This is a project that makes use of Stanford's
entitlements under the Mayfield Agreement of 2005, which limits the scope of our current review in ways
that it wouldn't otherwise be limited. We have reviewed this project officially once before. The planner is
Graham Owen. Any disclosures? Board members?
Vice Chair Baltay: The meeting we had yesterday, is that...?
Chair Furth: We had a staff meeting. We had a pre-meeting meeting with the staff, as we often do, in
which they went through the agenda items with us, and they informed us that...What did they inform us?
What did we learn that we didn't know?
Vice Chair Baltay: The landscape plan.
Chair Furth: Oh, we talked about the concept of a landscape reserve in calculating parking. I should also say I went up again and looked at the site yesterday, including the full-scale materials board. Has anybody else been up there recently?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I've been up there.
Chair Furth: Peter was up there, as well. It's very interesting to see it with the changing seasons and
what happens to the hillsides, and the grasses, and what-not. Staff, please.
Graham Owen, Project Planner: Thank you, Chair Furth. I have a brief presentation, and then I'll turn it
over to the applicant. As you mentioned, this is a Mayfield Development Agreement project sponsored by
Stanford University. This is also a site and design review application. Typically, site and design review
applications are reviewed by both the ARB, as well as the Planning and Transportation Commission, but,
as this is a Mayfield project, the ARB is the only hearing entity, outside of an appeal to City Council. This
is for an 82,030 square foot office R&D building, plus an additional 1,000 feet of traffic-mitigating FAR
exempt floor area. It is subject to the Mayfield Development Agreement, as well as the EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan that was prepared as a component of that agreement. As you mentioned, this is the second hearing. The first hearing was last month, May 3rd. There were a couple general comments. There are more specific comments that were included in the staff report. The Board specifically focused on the open space and Hillside context, and also the representation of the
landscaping, in particular in the upper area of the site. Also, one of the larger comments was the
perspective of the frontage of the building, in particular from the corner of Coyote Hill and Hillview. The
Board also recommended some changes to this other façade, which is this façade that's facing SAP, kind
of interior lot line, so that it might be enhanced and also match the quality in general of the other
facades. And then, also, one of the other things was visibility of the mechanical roof screen, which was
located on the section of the roof that's closest to the intersection. There are comments about that. I'll go
through it briefly. This is the site. The surrounding context: You have Coyote Hill to the west, SAP and a
number of other office/R&D buildings to the south, VMware's campuses across Hillview from the site, and
City of Palo Alto Page 33
then, PARC/Xerox is to the north. This is the proposed site plan. The building is located, again, at the
intersection of Hillview and Coyote Hill. There is surface parking on the upper module as well as wrapping
around to the back of the building. And then, there's one level of garage parking underneath the building.
This is the updated perspective rendering from the corner intersection of Hillview and Coyote Hill Road.
The previous rendering didn't show the trees that were proposed in this area, so this is a more
representative rendering. Additionally, one of the bigger changes is the seating that's been added to the,
the kind of platforms that break up the staircase. Here is a representation of the changes that have been made to the southern façade. The façade on the top is from the first hearing, the May 3rd hearing. Had a little more concrete forms. This second hearing, we're looking at the façade that's on the bottom. Has a little bit more spandrel and kind of a terracotta section. Also, a different mullion pattern, and just a larger use of the darker materials. This is a section drawing showing the mechanical screen and the perspectives from the public right-of-way on Coyote Hill and Hillview. As you can see, the mechanical
screen has been dropped in total height by about three feet, a little bit over three feet, but the location is
generally the same. One of our recommendations with this is to either relocate it so that the line of site
from the right-of-way is more fully screened from these perspectives, or to lower it in those areas so that
it's terraced. Key issues. Again, the Hillside context, I think is obviously the biggest concern or comment
with this application. You have adjacent open space agricultural use. Also, even though this is a site and
design review application, you have both the ARB findings as well as the site and design review
objectives to meet with this application. With that, we do recommend approval of the project, but I know
that there are probably some additional comments that have been raised, in particular at our pre-ARB
meeting, which we should discuss further with the applicant. That concludes my presentation.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant. If we could hear from the applicant, please.
Jason McCarthy, Studios Architecture: Thank you to the Board...
Chair Furth: Good morning.
Mr. McCarthy: Good morning.
Chair Furth: You have 10 minutes.
Mr. McCarthy: Thank you. My name is Jason McCarthy with Studios Architecture, and I'm happy to speak
on behalf of the project. We really appreciated the dialog with all of you in our last hearing and we
genuinely feel like we came away with a lot of great suggestions, and we feel we're coming back today
with a much-improved project, a much richer project, for your feedback. We're going to focus the
conversation on our responses and the rationale behind them, but just to reorient us all to the site again,
we are located at a prominent corner, deep in the Research Park at Hillview Avenue and Coyote Hill
Road. That Coyote Hill presence really was a major influence and an inspiration for our design team all
the way through the project, and continues to be so today. In particular, as Graham mentioned, I think one of the major areas of our conversation in a previous hearing was this entry corner and this first impression of the site. I think you challenged us to really increase the amenity and the comfort of that stair and make the site more a place to be occupied and to be enjoyed, not just something that we're passing through. Gary, do you want to add to that?
Gary Laymon, Guzzardo Partnership: We really took your suggestions to heart in looking at this as more
of a people space, not just a transition space, but really a place to be able to linger. As a result, we've
reoriented the space, we've enhanced the materials, we created seating, wood furniture with sustainable
wood that can be durable, with backs and armrests, so it's really very comfortable. Shade by virtue of the
oak trees that we have in that area; comfortable lighting; enhanced paving material. It really feels like a
very warm, inviting space. This actually occurs in an area where we happened to have a lot of the plants,
which are really featured as a part of our biological input relative to birds and bees, and to really enhance
the native qualities of the site and be able to celebrate those kind of interactions with nature.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
Mr. McCarthy: The landings were really embellished upon and the pavers are accent materials that are
representative and analogous to what we're using at the main entry plaza, so really trying to create these
intermediate landings as new destinations within the site. You also asked us to consider where the stair
should land at the top of the site. This is something we've considered very carefully, and we certainly
recognize the importance of that. But, I think we never really fully addressed that concern, or explained it
well. Part of the justification for why we landed where we have at the top of the stair is because we want
that stair to really address the full network of the pedestrian connectivity on the site. It needs to allow people to find their way both the front door if they're a first-time visitor coming off of a bus, or if it's an employee coming in at the eastern entry, they have an equal sense of access and direction. We feel that corner position makes the most sense, but it also, we think, has the benefit of really connecting in a more logical way to either direction of travel. It also connects into the stair up to the significant elevated platform or deck area that you see in the upper-right image. This view of the project is a little bit of a
birds-eye perspective, but you're looking into that eastern plaza area, and I don't think we really
illustrated that well before. It's articulated, it has architectural cues and wayfinding, scale and massing, a
certain level of detail that we think is celebratory of that as a primary entry, as well as the front door.
We're still recommending that the stair terminate at that front corner location for those reasons. The
other area that you asked us to look at very carefully was this south façade. We took all that to heart, as
well. I think what we've come back with is a much more appropriate level of detail, a level of scale in
terms of the composition, and really bringing this façade into the diagram for the whole project. We
really talked about this project being a composition of geometries intersecting, having some dynamism in
that intersection, and the composition of those pieces. In a sense, I think you had challenged us to make this more so like the other elevations. We feel like we've done that. We've used these wood volumes to interlock a bit more into the terra cotta volume, and as Graham mentioned, we've added that wooden spandrel to really draw that line across the project and have a larger scale composition, we think. That also is complemented with a little bit further detail and articulation of the window lines. We've added an
additional horizontal sun shade at all of the windows here. That adds another level of articulation to the
façade that we think, on reflection, we found was a bit flat in the previous version. In doing that, I think
we've addressed many of your comments, and also enhanced our sustainability performance and daylight
control for it. We feel that that has deeply enriched this side of the building. Coming back to the
conversation about the roof screen location. This is something that we have studied very carefully and
considered from the project's outset, and again, as you see in this updated rendering, the height of that
roof screen is lowered substantially. Still somewhat visible, but we think very well screened by the trellis
and by virtue of the fact that the roof screen is set back fairly politely from the roof edge. You can see on
these sight line drawings, there is some visibility, but again, we think it is an appropriate element and not
ostentatious or overwhelming the image of the building. I think, again, we maybe didn't really explain the design intent well enough in our previous demonstration of the project. Again, this is part of our composition, it's part of the architectural composition of the façade. We think that it's complementing this sort of energy and dynamism that will attract innovation clients and tenants to this type of building. Its position is purposeful in its composition, and we're treating that very carefully. We think it's a successful
balance of these intersections and overlaps and so forth. But, there are other functional rationale, as
well, certainly not the least of which is the optimization for photovoltaics. We're really being challenged
by Stanford -- and we love that challenge -- to really begin to make buildings highly productive for
photovoltaic solar production for energy. In this position, we feel the project has a better capacity for
that photovoltaic array. A third element to add is that it’s positioned in a way that the shafts that would
come down from this roof screen enclosure, as well as any major duct crossings, can avoid that central
double-height space. If you remember, that glassy spine and the double-height space, we have a large
opening in the second floor. All of that is at the center of the building to bring daylight in and really,
again, have this social heart for a culture of collaboration, a culture of innovation. All of this is really
possible in terms of the scale of this roof screen by virtue of having a very efficient, highly energy-
efficient building. We have a highly energy-efficient envelope and high-efficiency HVAC units, which have actually led us to having approximately 50 percent of the area of a traditional office building of this scale. The actual enclosure area is substantially reduced from what you might see on many of the other buildings in the Research Park. That's also amplified by the fact that we're doing a cantilevered structural
design for the roof screen elements. The walls are cantilevered out rather than having a kicker element,
so that's allowing us to really constrain the area of this volume. But, nonetheless, we actually think that
City of Palo Alto Page 35
volume is complementary to the elevation and to the design. While on this slide, I'll shift into the
conversation about bird-friendly design. I don't think staff brought that up again, but it was something
that we talked about and we are considering very deeply in the design. We did add or increase the
amount of what we feel are those strategies suggested by the San Francisco bird ordinance and Audubon
Society guidelines, strategies that include areas of fritted glass, ornamentation on the building such as
the horizontal sun shades, solid components, particularly solid construction near the corners of the
building where birds might be more likely to try and shortcut, and a number of other elements of the design that adds to this as an overall, what we feel is a very bird-friendly design. Certainly at the south, being more solid helps to offset the portions of the building that are more glassy.
Mr. Laymon: Briefly, I'd like to go through some of the aspects of the landscape design that you mentioned before.
Chair Furth: Excuse me. That's your 10 minutes. How much more do you think you need to complete
this.
Mr. Laymon: Three and a half?
Chair Furth: See if you can do it in three.
Mr. Laymon: All right. Do my best. One of the things that was very influential...It's interesting you
mentioned the seasonal quality, how you were experiencing that. That was very important in terms of
looking at how the landscape design worked overall. A lot of the renderings depict the site as being very
green because that's sort of traditional to how things get rendered. But, in reality, the landscape is really
going to be transition with the nature, with the hillside. A lot of diversity within the parking lots in
particular. It's not a typical grid or an orchard of trees that you would see on many projects, but it has a hierarchy of landscape. You can see there's a street tree that's highlighted here in red. A great diversity of plant material within the parking lot, which will give it a sense of softness. I think that, in addition to the organic nature of the parking lot itself, will also give it some softer qualities. The landscape design incorporates all the good circulation measures we've been talking about to make it a very pedestrian and
bicycle-friendly environment, and really connect people to the site, make it very clean and efficient. Very
rich material palate has been used throughout. And, like we said, many native species that were really
enhanced by virtue of our conversations with Stanford's biologist, to really create not just a visual
connection, but an actual habitat connection back to the surrounding open space areas. We've also
studied the biotreatment areas and looking at that as an opportunity to be able to help celebrate our
story about how we're treating water. Incorporating stones into that, which are kind of used throughout
the landscape design, which was a nice feature back to the open space. We also looked at the views to
the parking area relative to Coyote. It's a very important view area. In this plan here, you can see we're
using substantial size plant material to help buffer that view from the street passing by. You can see in
the texture of the planting, again, very soft, organic forms of really nice mixture of plant materials to create a softened feeling there. You get a real strong buffer to those parking areas off of Coyote Hill versus what we have today. I think that's been very successful. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I had a question about circulation diagram L6.0. It identifies the PARC Café and the VMware Café. Are they open? Going to be open to the tenants of this building?
Mr. McCarthy: Yes, they are.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Good cuing from the audience there.
Mr. McCarthy: I knew that.
Chair Furth: Could support staff, could (inaudible). All right, thank you. Before you leave, do my
colleagues have questions they'd like answered? Peter?
City of Palo Alto Page 36
Vice Chair Baltay: Maybe through the Chair. We had discussed in that meeting yesterday about a
landscape...?
Chair Furth: Okay. Thank you. We will bring it back up to staff. Anything staff wants to add before we
deliberate up here and begin to ask more questions?
Mr. Owen: Nothing.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I'm going to take advantage of our small numbers today and I'm going to go
with my comments first. As far as I can tell -- and I defer to my colleagues who read plans better than I do and are less seduced by pretty drawings -- to me, the southern façade looks much improved and quite acceptable. I think they're agreeing with me on that one, so you can tick that one off your box of things to do. My concern is that we appreciate the fact that you have a significant amount of underground
parking, and that that's what we're going to have in terms of underground parking. But, we have a new
Comprehensive Plan, which is even more aware of how dire our straits are with respect to the viability of
this plan. It is a place for humans to reside. And we have a transportation element that really emphasizes
the need to get out of our individual cars and use other approaches for mobility. It says that Stanford
operates a terrific TDM program for its academic center, and that it is working on a program for the
Research Park -- and I think you mentioned that in passing yourselves. And, it sets some goals. I actually
put little sticky things in here, if I can find it. On page 79 it says that we're going to do more
transportation demand management, and we're going to have a goal of 30 percent reduction in the
Stanford Research Park of single-occupant vehicle trips. And, as you all pointed out, and you designed
this site, it's got a lot of good support. I mean, the bad thing about the Research Park is it is a 50's model
of computers whirring in the woods, and everybody driving to get to them. That creates a lot of problems in transportation, in housing, and global warming. This building, Graham, this building is one parking space per 350 square feet?
Mr. Owen: That's correct.
Male?: Three hundred.
Chair Furth: Three hundred.
Mr. Owen: Sorry, did you say 3,000?
Chair Furth: Even worse. I don't know what your rule of thumb is for how many people you expect here,
but we're providing something not far off from a parking space per employee. What would you say?
Mr. Owen: That's what it would come out to. Pretty close, yeah.
Chair Furth: Yeah. That's excessive if we're trying to get the significant kind of reduction. We have not
adopted lower parking standards. I mean, the other thing from our point of view is, your projects are
always really interesting for us because you do not have a lot of neighbors who are going to be
inconvenienced if there is parking overflow. You're the opposite of trying to fit something in downtown.
But, we do have the notion of a landscape reserve, which says that as long as you've shown us where
you could put the parking if you needed all of it, don't build it all now. This feeds into my second issue, which is the way that this site currently addresses -- is next to -- the open space, and the way it would be if you develop it as you're proposing here. I spent a lot of time tromping around in the high, dry grass, trying to figure out where the edge of the proposed parking lot would be in relationship to the existing
imported Spanish grasses, and the fence line up there. My perception is that even with your thoughtful
use of plants over in the corner, this is going to be a significant loss, and that you're going to trade a soft
edge to that open space for a whole lot of parked cars, and that's not a good deal. So, I would like to
explore the idea of addressing those related problems, that this is too much parking for this building if it's
going to meet the standards to which Stanford and we aspire in terms of vehicle usage and the
encroachment, the ever-getting-closer, to this edge. Which, right now, in its own somewhat funky way,
City of Palo Alto Page 37
works. One interesting thing about this design -- and I'm certainly not going to propose you change it --
is that for all the lovely work you've done to get us from the corner of Coyote and Hillview, the main
building entrance is a parking lot entrance. It's a car entrance. And I don't think in the future we're going
to be seeing that so much. I'm hoping that if I work my up the staircase from the bus stop, I'm going to
be able to go into the secure employee entry and not have to walk all the way around the building. This
is not something that I'm proposing that you change now, but I'm thinking we're going to look at
differently when we look at future proposals. Those are my opening thoughts.
Board Member Gooyer: My question then is, are you talking about requiring something at this point?
Chair Furth: I'm suggesting that we explore the possibility of being a landscape reserve. I don't know that we have the power to require it, but I'd certainly like to work with the applicant to consider it, see what
their constraints and desires are. When we get the full board here to finish this project off, we see if
that's a possibility. I don't know if we have authority to require it. I suppose we could, on the grounds
that we can't otherwise meet our standards of compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan. But, I think
you need a lot more arithmetic before you come to that conclusion.
Mr. Owen: If I may, just to answer that question about requirement. Landscape reserve in our code is a
method for the director to adjust the required parking. It typically is something that you'd see an
applicant offer, and then, that is considered by the Board and approved by the director. That's the typical
way in which [crosstalk].
Chair Furth: And I'm suggesting that even as we used to use level of service as our circulation metric and
now we use vehicle miles traveled, maybe we should be using it more tactically and strategically. I have
no idea what I meant by that, but what I'm trying to say is use it. Assume that it is better to have as little parking as possible but meets the uses of the building, rather than, fine, extra parking? We're all for it.
Vice Chair Baltay: I've been struggling with this building, and I spent quite a bit of time last Saturday, walking this site, trying to get under its skin, thinking about it. It's a beautiful piece of architecture, and it's a high-quality landscaped design. Why am I just not really ecstatic about it? And I think it gets to the
root of what Wynne is talking about, that this is so much still an auto-centric mindset on this building.
One thing I notice when I'm out there is that there is a lot of pedestrian traffic. One thing I notice around
Palo Alto is that we're changing so fast to a group of people who don't just use our cars all the time. We
have bicycles, and buses, and Ubers, and electric scooters -- It goes on and on and on. If any place is
going to embrace that, it's Palo Alto. The Research Park especially. You're full of employees, people who
want to embrace that. And yet, the building doesn't do it. So, I put it to you that you need to have a
pedestrian connection to that street corner, where the people come, where the arrival is. That pedestrian
connection needs to go to someplace important in the building. It needs to link to a door, to an entrance.
It needs to do it visually with something on the façade. It needs to do it practically. It's hot out there, so
you're not walking up a staircase and then 200 feet along a building because you don't have a badge to get in the employee entrance. It needs to celebrate and bring you to a front door. The design also needs to say this is an important corner. This is where you're arriving from. I think what's missing is the recognition that that is going to be the way the building is perceived more and more, as people don't arrive in a car. That's the corner they're coming from -- Coyote and Hillview there. Everybody starts their
journey into this building from that corner. Boy, it feels like it's just a second-thought, still. You've done a
great job landscaping that staircase. I'd love to have it in my back yard. It's really beautiful. But it's not
the entrance to a world-class research facility in a world-class part of the country. Everything we're doing
here is fantastic, and this is still sneaking up to the corner, and as the architect explained, we couldn't
decide if we go to the front or the employee entrance, so we split the difference. We don't want you to
split the difference. We want you to celebrate the entrance to the building, and to really come to the
middle of it. That's sort of a fundamental conceptual problem I've been struggling with on this building,
that it just isn't relating outward the way I think it needs to. The second thing I feel even more strongly
about is the fact that you have this incredible open space up Coyote Hill. It's stunning, and it's fewer and fewer spaces we have, and we're trying to hard to preserve and celebrate that. I was bothered last time by the landscaping, that the coloring of the renderings make it look like there's a golf course next to a
City of Palo Alto Page 38
wild space. I'll grant you, that's not the case. It's very sensitively done landscape architecture. But,
putting a parking lot within a couple feet of that, with a retaining wall to make the grades work and stuff,
really is the problem. That parking lot needs to be 30 or 40 feet away from that, so that the landscaping
has room to flow, to become part of that open space. It's just a core problem that we're creating large
amounts of surface parking right up to the edge of an open space preserve. I find that's just a
fundamental flaw in the design. That parking lot should not be there. You should have additional space to
let the building gradually transition into this precious open space. I think Wynne pointed out the arguments with the Comprehensive Plan, why this is, in a sense, too much parking. You can see what it's doing to the building. I think the findings we have to make, or the recommendations regarding ecological balance on the site design, also support what I’m saying. The building is just not balanced in its relation to the open space, and the cause is the parking lot. I'll leave it at that for this moment.
Board Member Gooyer: You know, it's interesting that you say that because I was thinking the same
thing, that luckily, the way this thing is designed, there are entrances on both sides, but they are
stressing the parking lot side, if you want to call it. But, I could even justify it more making that the main
entrance if, as you said, that parking lot was gone. The thought was, that main entrance overlooks the
hill. Then it's a little bit more of a rationale as to, that's why we made this the front entry.
Vice Chair Baltay: The hillside is so beautiful.
Board Member Gooyer: Exactly.
Vice Chair Baltay: It's stunning, how gorgeous that...From the front door of this building, if you weren't
looking across a parking lot, it's to die for. I mean, it's every millionaire's dream to live in a place like
that.
Chair Furth: Billionaire's, Peter. Billionaire. Any other comments, Robert? How do you feel about the south façade?
Board Member Gooyer: The south façade is a tremendous improvement over what it was the last go-around. All in all, other than this whole parking issue, which we've all struggled with a bit, I think it's
come a great deal...Or, I should say it's improved a great deal, so, at this point, I could probably approve
it on the architecture of the building.
Chair Furth: How about the roof screen element?
Board Member Gooyer: I like the revised screen. I'm fine with it.
Chair Furth: Okay. And I don't particularly have a problem with it. I did have a question. One of the
issues that we've dealt with recently is what happens to a building when you add photovoltaics. I can't
remember. On this one, do we have a drawing of what that would look like?
Mr. McCarthy: Give me a second to find it. There is a roof plan.
Chair Furth: I know there's a roof plan, but I mean a perspective, an elevation, a rendering.
Mr. McCarthy: Sorry, no, we don't have that illustrated.
Chair Furth: That has turned out to be really important on the buildings, as you've heard...I don't know when you came this morning, but in the buildings we look at, these are becoming almost standard features of larger structures. They often make the buildings more beautiful, and then sometimes, in the case of the City's own efforts, they make them even worse. I'm not referring to the downtown garage.
We think they look better. The building is finished by the photovoltaics. I think for this level of design, it's
important to have an idea of what you have in mind.
City of Palo Alto Page 39
Board Member Gooyer: I agree, I agree. Again, like I said, I don't want to sit there and design it for you,
but I think because it's become a much bigger issue, I mean, we've all run through that thing where
we've left it to the subcontractor to put up the panels, and all of a sudden, you walk in and it's like, oh,
my God, they've ruined the whole concept or design of the building by doing whatever they ended up
doing.
Mr. McCarthy: There is a small photovoltaic array as a Phase 1 installation, and that is proposed to be the
ballasted style, which is a very low-profile.
Board Member Gooyer: You're wanting to see it.
Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, if you're familiar with...
Board Member Gooyer: Okay, well, that's ...
Chair Furth: All you need to do is describe it to us.
[crosstalk]
Board Member Gooyer: Obviously, if that's the attempt, based on the screens that are there, you'll never
see it, then we don't have a problem with it. But some of them...
Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, yeah, we're not doing the stanchions and the...
Board Member Gooyer: Okay, okay.
Chair Furth: You're not doing a carport on top. Right. We need to be sure it's part of the record and part
of what we understand so that that will be clear to us all in the future. I'm probably a little easier to...I
don't know how much parking could or should be removed. Of course, I would love it if the building
flowed into, you know, you could look up the hillside, and I'm sure from Stanford's point of view, we've
preserved the hillside, now you want another 40 feet? But, I do think that what is proposed is too close. I would like to know from staff what options we can offer them. Of course, good to talk to the applicant and find out what might or might not be attractive to them. It is a building that opens in both directions and I presume can be programmed flexibly, depending on how uses evolve. It's taken us 15 years to get this Comprehensive Plan, as opposed to the 10 it's supposed to, and now we're actually reading it, and it
calls on us to change.
Mr. Owen: To your point about the landscape preserve and what we can require, I can take a little bit out
of the code, Section 18.52.050, which is our parking and loading standards, and in particular, allowable
parking adjustments. Again, it would need to be something that's offered by the applicant and is
reviewed by the Board and approved by the Director. In terms of what the upper limits are...
Chair Furth: There are existing rules. Before we get around to changing them to implement the plan,
what could we offer?
Mr. Owen: The absolute maximum would be a 50 percent deferral, which...
Chair Furth: That would take care of all service parking, I think.
Mr. Owen: Right. I think one of the things, in looking at a landscape reserve, we need to look at what are the operating characteristics that are proposed with the initial tenant, which I don't believe they've selected a tenant at this point. Landscape reserves is one of these ideas where you don't necessarily know what the occupancy is going to be, and therefore, what the parking demand is going to be, at least at the outset.
City of Palo Alto Page 40
Chair Furth: Right.
Mr. Owen: If it's an R&D use with heavier equipment and fewer people, that's different from more of an
office tenant, for example, you're cramming in...
Chair Furth: R&D, when it's all done, staring at computer screens.
Mr. Owen: Right.
Chair Furth: Well, I think it would be very helpful to us to know what the range of possible things is. I'd
like to see a sketch of what various reductions would look like. I know traditionally, being able to offer a lot of parking has been a good thing for landlords. That's going to have to change. It's going to have to be offering other things. For our next meeting, that would be very helpful. Anything else we want to say before we continue this to whenever you want it continued, when we have a full board?
Mr. Owen: If I may, it might be worth...
[crosstalk]
Mr. Owen: ...hearing from the applicant about the idea of the landscape reserve.
Chair Furth: I think we have an applicant (inaudible).
Tiffany Griego, Stanford Research Park: Good morning. My name is Tiffany Griego, managing director of
Stanford Research Park. I'd like to comment a little bit on our TDM program. We formed a Research Park
Transportation Management Association several years ago. We staffed it with two full-time employees,
and we have five consultants. It is an extremely well-staffed effort and we are deeply committed to it. In
many respects, the goals that the City of Palo Alto shares that are articulated in the comp plan are our
goals, as well, and you're clearly articulating them today. We want to see our TDM efforts be extremely
successful. We work very hard with the members of our TMA to create a series of incentives to draw people out of their cars. Carrots and sticks is an approach that a lot of people hope to take, but we have never really faced a situation that we're facing today, where we have deliberately reduced parking as a stick approach to encouraging people to ride transit. It's an interesting new frontier we're going to have to talk about because we want to see the reduction that you want to see. I'll comment on this back RP-5
District. It officially takes about 25 minutes to ride a Marguerite shuttle from the University Avenue
station to this part of the Research Park, and we have heard a fair amount of complaints from people
that it just takes too long. It's not a last mile. It's close to three miles. It is well served by transit, like we
talked about last time, but I'm trying to give a little bit of a context as to what we face back here. Now,
because there are so many large-scale employers that seem drawn to that pastoral back corner, it's
VMware, it's Tesla, SAP and Xerox Park. They happen to be the ones that are most committed to working
with us on transportation programs. You have this unique issue where it's far away in location and it's
somewhat painful to get back there in duration, but you have a strong commitment. So, those companies
tend to have the lowest SOV rates of all the companies in the Research Park. It's just an interesting
dynamic back there. We are hopeful that we can secure a tenant for this building -- we don't have one yet -- and that they can leverage this strong partnership that these companies have collaborated to run private long-distance shuttles to and from San Jose, San Francisco, and really make sure that this building links in, this tenant links into that system. That is our hope. We don't have a tenant yet. I also want to add a little bit of context because another part of my capacity in this role is making sure there is
a strong strategy around curating the buildings that we bring to the Research Park market. As you know,
we don't control everything. But, curating them with a very strategic mix of tenants. Turning now to our
goals around tenancy, we have been in discussions with former mayor Pat Burt and current vice-mayor
Eric Filseth to try and identify a strategy for bringing more life science and biotech to the Research Park.
At our peak, we were 45 percent, and now we're six percent, so we've lost our standing in that particular
segment. They drive less, or they occupy buildings at a different density. Everyone knows that, and that's
kind of the appeal of that particular sector. Another initiative that we've been talking about with the City,
City of Palo Alto Page 41
largely due to the fact that there's a point of sale associated with Tesla, is this automotive tech-mobility
industry, so we've worked hard to bring them to the Research Park. They are ready-made partners for
our TDM program, so that's an exciting initiative, as well. In that, we've noticed that the car companies,
they drive. They drive. And they also use the parking lots to park some of the R&D. We can't yet predict
the utility of the parking lot, and we want to do the right thing, but we stand before you today with a bit
of uncertainty around who is coming here. In terms of options that we would think about today and want
to propose, and really see if we could get concurrence today instead of coming back to another meeting, we were thinking we could enhance the amenity space to the five percent rule of thumb that the City, I think, has been increasingly embracing. We have 1,000 square feet of amenity space proposed, but we can go up to something like -- I'm rounding -- 4,000 feet. And we feel comfortable doing that. That deletes 10 parking spaces right off the bat. They would not even be in landscape reserve. And then, we were thinking that the area of concern as it relates to the transition to the open space is the new
impervious surface, that this current plan we've proposed encroaches beyond the existing parking lot that
already is there. I think someone has a diagram that shows before and after -- "after" being this plan --
and there's a delta in terms of impervious surface that you can see when that plan is shown. Blue is now,
what we're proposing... I mean, not what I’m about to propose, but what is before you today, is blue.
Red is the existing circulation. We've counted the number of spaces that are kind of net-new in terms of
impervious surface near that corner and it equals 26. If we change the amenity space and delete the
need for 10, we'd be comfortable putting the other 16 -- for a total of 26 -- into a landscape reserve.
And, we were talking with Graham about, how does landscape reserve work? We don't have experience
with it in recent years. We don't know that there are other folks in the Research Park who have it. Well, in recent years. I think it's kind of a legacy thing. One issue that I just want to be honest about is...
Chair Furth: We do it with your tenants.
Ms. Griego: You do?
Chair Furth: We're doing it currently with another building.
Ms. Griego: I understand that. I heard that. I wasn't aware of that. I don't have recent experience with it.
If a company like Tesla approached us three or four months from now, after today's approval, if you will,
of a landscape reserve, how do we then have them speak for themselves in the process, to potentially
deploy those 16 spaces? That's a question that I would like to ask because I think I don't totally
understand. But, our intentions would be to not put that parking in the rotation. It would cost money to
obviously convert that into 16 parking spaces. It wouldn't be our goal. It would just be if they raised a
concern. I'm just using them as a hypothetical. That's a little bit of what we would like to query back in
order to hopefully conclude this issue today in a way that feels...
Male?: (inaudible)
Ms. Griego: Oh, okay. Yeah. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I'm available to answer any other questions.
Chair Furth: Thank you, Ms. Griego. Question, Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Let me...
Mr. McCarthy: This is a quick illustration of where that 26 could pull back. That would open up quite a bit that transition.
Chair Furth: Where is the existing parking lot?
Mr. McCarthy: The red lines represent the... [crosstalk]
Chair Furth: That's what I thought.
City of Palo Alto Page 42
[crosstalk]
Mr. McCarthy: There's a bunch of dilapidated structures and the old volleyball court up there.
Chair Furth: Yeah, and the picnic tables. Okay, that's the existing paved, paving roads, approaches. And
the blue is your present proposal. And we don't have a sketch of what a slightly-reduced...
Mr. McCarthy: Sorry. The dashed line represents what was in the submittal package, and the solid blue at
the southern edge is now the new proposal on the table, of reducing 26 spaces.
Chair Furth: Got it.
Board Member Gooyer: I look at it a little differently, in that seeing as though you say you don't have a tenant yet, it's a little different if you landscape-bank -- whatever you want to call it -- don't put in a big chunk of the parking lot, and then you get a tenant. This is a desirable place to take your company, and
you want to be in this area. When you come in, you begin to see, this is the parking spaces that I have,
and you adjust accordingly. If you show someone, here, you could have another 200 parking spaces, but,
you know, it's your option whether you want them or not, not too many people are going to say, you
know, yes, I agree, I'll just get rid of them. Now, if you already had a tenant and you promised them 400
parking spaces -- whatever the number is -- and then, you come back and say, well, we're only allowed
to give you 300 now, they'd be upset. If you come in and you say, here's the space you have, and you
have 300 parking spaces, and they don't know about the extra 100 parking spaces, so to speak, I don't
think it's going to be as big a detriment on your sale-ability or lease-ability of the space. In another
municipality, we had two situations where we talked about landscape banking. The council I was on was
very divided at that point, but we went ahead and we did it on both cases, and to this point, no one has
ever come back and questioned it or asked about it. In fact, we've had comments about, why were they able to have all that nice landscaping? They don't think about the parking so much, but it's just, wow, look at all the nice landscaping. That sort of that thing. And I'm not saying that that's a guaranteed situation. We looked at two particular items where it was, you know, real iffy. We have to start somewhere. That's always the problem with this. It's that first step. It's the first person that gives it a
shot, or the first company that gives it a shot, and it's not like if we do it that way, you'll never be able to
get the, let's say the 100 parking spaces back. If it becomes very obvious that it becomes an issue, you
haven't spent the money to do the parking lot anyway, so it's not like you're paying double for that piece
of development. I look at it that way.
Chair Furth: Okay. We have two questions we need to address. One is whether we want the whole Board
to consider this project. I'm afraid the answer is yes. We think you need -- I hesitate to say this -- the
wisdom of all five of us on this project. We're mindful that this is a Mayfield project, and we're mindful
that we're all trying to do the right thing here. We're mindful that we're competing with Detroit and south
San Francisco for tenants. You are. This looks to me like it could be a significant improvement. I can't
understand it all yet, but it does look better. I think we are going to continue this item. Peter, what would you like to add?
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm just going to say no, I don't think it's a significant improvement. I think it's a marginal improvement, and I think that entire upper parking lot just shouldn't be there. I want to be crystal clear. If I had to vote right now, I would vote no to the entire project. I think fundamentally it's
flawed. Maybe Wynne's going to make it so we don't vote today, which is to your benefit. But, I think if
we were to say we're just going to have the entire upper parking lot put in a landscape reserve, you
might be able to sway some votes.
Chair Furth: Well, I think that we don't know enough to make informed decisions today. I think that there
are a number of possibilities, that we've got a number of responsibilities, as does Stanford, and we
should continue this to a date certain or uncertain, depending on what you want.
Mr. McCarthy: Can I ask a point of clarification?
City of Palo Alto Page 43
Chair Furth: Sure.
Mr. McCarthy: If we do continue to a future date, do we have your general consensus around the
architecture? I think Board Member Gooyer supported it. Will we be revisiting the full design with the full
Board?
Chair Furth: I think...Well, the short answer is, yes, because there's five of us, and they are entitled to
vote as they wish. I think the three of us think you did a great job on this southern exposure, so you've
already got three votes out of five, so you've got that one. And, you have a 2-1 split on the roof screen, with Board Member Baltay not supporting the present arrangement...?
Vice Chair Baltay: I don't support the roof screen the way it is now, no.
Chair Furth: Right.
Vice Chair Baltay: I think that could be easily changed.
Chair Furth: That's right. You probably have a better recollection of what our other board members said
at the last meeting than I do, because I'm sure you parsed it carefully.
Mr. McCarthy: I think the primary issue that we're particularly concerned with is the commentary around
the entry. I think it's been intertwined with the discussion about parking. I just want to be clear that
we're trying to address a very complex site that has many faces. There is no backside, as we've talked to
this project. And, the accessibility from pedestrians is vital to the project. We totally agree with that.
What we're struggling with is we need ADA parking, and that has to be near the front door, and so does
the elevator. So, when we looked at this very early, we studied alternates for how to position the
building. The traditional role is put it in the middle of a sea of parking and have an apron of parking
between the building and the street. As a compromise to that, we have this split entry, which we think is a successful compromise. We think that it gives you the benefit of pedestrian activity on the site, invites a lot of use of the site, but also has a very comfortable access from pedestrians coming off of Coyote Hill. The grades are much more pleasant there. And, it's addressing that front door need, which is very much celebrating the view of Coyote Hill, which we really want to celebrate and cherish. Where I hope to have
a majority support is around not redesigning or repositioning the whole building to start over. I haven't
heard any suggestion of how to address this conundrum of having a site which is accessible from every
angle.
Vice Chair Baltay: Why can't the stair come to the, what I presume is the employee entrance, the other
end of the front entrance? You're talking about a main central space where you celebrate diversity, etc.
Why can't that be a second front door?
Mr. McCarthy: That's something we talked about as a possible compromise, is to add an additional
pathway [crosstalk]...
Vice Chair Baltay: I mean, it seems to me, if the stair went to that other entrance spot, which is what you
see, you address all the things I'm talking about.
Ms. Griego: May I ask for you to point out...?
Chair Furth: The (inaudible).
Ms. Griego: I'm not following.
Board Member Gooyer: I agree. I mean, I think there's a definite front side and a back side to this
building. You can see it just by the architecture. I'm having a hard time finding a straight-on view of the,
quote, secondary...
City of Palo Alto Page 44
Chair Furth: Employee entrance?
Board Member Gooyer: ...or employee entrance. You see it on a 45-degree angle, but I really don't see
anything that shows me exactly where...
Mr. McCarthy: Sorry. We added that into this... [crosstalk]
Board Member Gooyer: I mean, that tells me right there that...
Vice Chair Baltay: Right there.
Board Member Gooyer: Okay, that's, well, I mean, it's a partial one. It's definitely not to the same quality of the other one, but it could easily be made as such. That's the benefit with that. That's why I looked at it initially, that if you remove the point that says "main entry" and work it so that, with some slight modification of the stairway, I agree that it could be a two-sided... And that would eliminate the concern
that this Board has. And who knows? Maybe people in the future won't use it at that, but if someone
comes up on their scooter, or their bicycle, or walks, they don't feel like they're going into the back door,
that they're actually going in the front door. Like I said, you've come a long way at making that look like
a second one. It just takes a little bit more.
Chair Furth: I can only speak for myself. When approaching a number of buildings in the Research Park,
if you're not part of the elect, if you don't always do it, that can be very confusing. You get a lot of signs
saying walk around the building, and then you wander through the corporation yard, and then you get to
another sign that says Do Not Enter. That's part of what is important, is to know, where am I welcome?
Where am I heading to? Where am I not going into somebody's back yard? I do not envision a redesign
of the building in any kind of large way, or re-situating it. I do understand that the Americans with
Disabilities Act requires that access be to a front door and not a less-attractive door, that that's one of its principles. You don't have to come in through the back. But I don't think that stands in the way of what we're talking about. And while I don't want to see buildings in the future which are quite so car-oriented, this is a building in process, and I have different standards for this one. Maddening as this all may be for you. I'm not asking for a major redesign. And I don't also require a flight of stairs straight up from
Hillview.
Board Member Gooyer: I agree.
Chair Furth: That's not inviting. That's intimidating. But, it would be good to know where I'm going when
I get there, and have it read as welcome to our building.
Mr. McCarthy: Can I offer a possible middle ground there, in hopes of having some clarity on direction for
where we might go from here? There is, in the revised design, we've embellished a landing here, sort of
midway in the ramp, if you can see the cursor here. In terms of desire lines across the site, you're sort of
likely to either be going to the bus at this corner, across to other sites beyond, or you're likely to be going
up the hill, up along Hillview Avenue. One thought is to enhance this landing further, make it another of
our bench seating terraces and have a stair connecting down from that eastern plaza. It doesn't necessarily have to go all the way through to Hillview because I don't think that really lands you anywhere particular. But, I think adding that would, again, reinforce this as a significant access point to the building.
Chair Furth: Any responses?
Board Member Gooyer: I agree. Like I said, they don't have to be equal, but right now, the building
definitely has a front and a back.
City of Palo Alto Page 45
Mr. McCarthy: Yes. And operationally, with high technology clients and companies, there's always going
to be a front door, and usually they want it to be as small as possible. And then, the elite few who are
deigned entrance really get to have their play.
Chair Furth: I think we have said as much as we can say. You know, clearly we don't have consensus up
here. We're not unanimous in our views, but I think we're unanimous in our goals, which are a minimum
of parking, in terms of both what you're entitled to and what you need. And, more space between the
edge of your property abutting the open space and development. The other things that these wrap-around parking things do is they deal with fire, and you're next to an open space. The asphalt is part of the barrier. The cars aren't, usually. If you've ever been to Taniha [phonetic], you know, the reason Taniha sits in a sea of parking lot is because that's their first-degree buffer in fire. I don't know what else we could say, except that very much appreciate your ability to generate useful and informative graphics for us, and seeing very clearly from staff or the applicant what a reduced...I mean, Peter is saying move
it all, so one of the calculations I want to know is, how many parking spaces is that? So we'll know if it's
even possible. If it's not...Whatever the answer is, then how many parking spaces could we remove to
get significantly better, to not encroach on the existing, introduced, but not viewed as native grasses.
Board Member Gooyer: Rather than stating a number, I'd like to see them redevelop that area and see
what...
Chair Furth: See what happens.
Board Member Gooyer: ...you could do as far as saving, you know, tightening that area up. Rather than
just saying you've got 30 percent, or 20 percent....
Chair Furth: I have no idea.
Board Member Gooyer: ...or whatever the case is, is that, you know, make it so it's viable for you to have a lane of double-sided parking, basically, (inaudible) parking right up to what you're now calling your main entry, but not include that whole area in the back. Now, whether you get some parking over near the street, that's one thing, but it still keeps it away from the field that's there.
Chair Furth: Okay. I think we've probably done as much as we can do in terms of clarity? Do you want to
say more, Peter?
Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to see a change to the stair in the front to what you call the employee
entrance and do something about the parking. Then you would have my support. You want clarity. I
think that's clear.
Ms. Griego: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Okay.
Mr. Owen: If I may, we have the option, of course, of deferring this item to a date certain or uncertain.
Chair Furth: What's the applicant's preference?
Mr. Owen: We could ask them. I know that the ARB meeting on the 5th of July -- that's coming up rather quickly -- we only have one item on that, and it's also a Research Park project that's similar in terms of the size. It might be. It has landscape reserve...
Chair Furth: It has a landscape reserve.
Mr. Owen: ...questions, so it might be good or bad to have that on the same date.
City of Palo Alto Page 46
Chair Furth: Whatever the applicant would like.
Ms. Griego: We think that project is very different than this, so...
Chair Furth: Oh, it is.
Ms. Griego: ...probably not related.
Chair Furth: It is. It just uses the same legal technique.
Ms. Griego: For different reasons. What would be another date beyond July 5th? A lot of us are not here,
we just realized.
Mr. Owen: The 19th, and then August 2nd, are the next available dates.
Chair Furth: We have a pretty open calendar.
Ms. Griego: Do you know who would be in attendance? Will you have the full five on the 19th? [No
audible response.] Okay. That date works. We're here. July 19th. Yes. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Anything else?
Erik Sueberkrop, Studios Architecture: Yeah, hi. Erik Sueberkrop with Studios Architecture.
Chair Furth: I'm sorry, could you spell your second name for the transcriber.
Mr. Sueberkrop: [spells name] Can we put on the site plan again? We're doing a lot of work with high-
tech folks now, Google, and Facebook, and others, and some of them are renovations of buildings which
have multiple entries. We're being forced to take out all those entries because they want it secured to
one entry. And we share your interest in making the corner important, trying to generate a connection to
the street. That's what we did at 1450, and it was very important to us. We tried to do that here with the
building, and we think, you know, some tenants will have that entry flowing and open. It just depends on
the tenant. But ADA here rules quite a bit in terms of where we're going to access. You're going to have the drive on the west here for fire, for ADA. We're going to have a lot of asphalt. The width for fire trucks is pretty wide. I think having some parking on the west just seems natural because you're going to have it anyway. You're going to have to asphalt it anyway. It seems like both things sort of flow naturally. We can certainly reinforce your comments and come back to you that way, but I think just to give us a little
more clarity, I think in terms of getting rid of all the asphalt on the west side, I don't think it's possible.
Chair Furth: Well, I think you have a division of opinion here.
Board Member Gooyer: I think you're overdoing it when you say we're asking you to get rid of all the
asphalt on the west side. There's already a roadway that goes there that's double-loaded with parking.
We're not asking you to get rid of that, obviously. What we're talking about, what we'd like to see
removed or greatly reduced is the set-alone parking area adjacent to the property line. Nobody ever
mentioned getting rid of all the parking on the west side. The thing is, because the roadway is very clear,
there's no ADA issue because that entry, no matter what you do, is going to be as prominent as the other
side. We're actually increasing the prominence of the other side. We're not diminishing the, quote, ADA
side, so I don't see any issue from ADA or fire. It's got a straight shot through the entire thing.
Chair Furth: Just to be clear for all of us, it's the, what I call the upper parking lot. The part adjacent to, actually west on this map, that concerns us, that we don't like, that we would like to see gone.
Board Member Gooyer: Right.
City of Palo Alto Page 47
Mr. Sueberkrop: Okay.
Chair Furth: And what's possible, we don't know. And, of course, we have no control over what your
tenants do. You have some, but, you know, they're going to use these buildings. All we can do is provide
possibilities.
Mr. Sueberkrop: Right. Thank you very much.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
MOTION
Chair Furth: May I have a motion to continue this to July 19th?
Board Member Gooyer: I'll move we continue this to a date certain, July 19th.
Vice Chair Baltay: Second.
Chair Furth: All in favor say aye. Opposed, none. It carries.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0.
Chair Furth: We anticipate a full complement, and unless we're lacking a quorum, I would anticipate that
we will go with whoever is here.
Study Session
Chair Furth: Okay, we have no study session.
Approval of Minutes
5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2018.
Chair Furth: We have minutes for May 17th. I propose we defer these until we have everybody back.
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I don't think there's any reason why...
Chair Furth: I move we continue the approval of the minutes to the next regular meeting. Second?
Vice Chair Baltay: Second
Chair Furth: Seconded by Board Member Baltay. All those in favor say aye. All right.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0.
Subcommittee Items
Chair Furth: Anything more from staff before we go? We have no subcommittee items today.
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Chair Furth: Any Board member questions or announcements?
Board Member Gooyer: Nope.
Chair Furth: Thank you, staff. We will see you in a few weeks. We are adjourned.
City of Palo Alto Page 48
Adjournment