HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-01 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 1, 2019
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, 2) Tentative
Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions
Action Items
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All
others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL. 702 Clara Drive [18PLN-00068]:
Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural
Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, Four-Unit
Apartment Building and Construction of Three Detached Single-Family Homes
Totaling 5,000 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline
Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: RM-15 (Residential
Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing
at sahsing@m-group.us
3. 486 Hamilton Avenue [19PLN-00115]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review
of a new Four Story Mixed use Project Including 2,457 Square Feet of Retail Space,
2,049 Square Feet of Office Space, and Four (4) Residential Units. Environmental
Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: CD-C(P) (Downtown Commerical). For
More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-
group.us.
_______________________
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.
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
Subcommittee Items
4. 3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved
Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Louvre
Window and Stair Well Trellis Mesh. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated
Negative Declaration Prepared for 15PLN-00312. Zoning District: CS (Commercial
Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at
apetersen@m-group.us
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes 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 David Hirsch
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 # 10542)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/1/2019
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, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent
Project Decisions
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.
Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at
http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects.
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
1
Packet Pg. 4
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the
applicant.
No action is required by the ARB for this item.
Attachments:
Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)
Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 5
2019 Schedule
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special
1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2/21/2019
/17
8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay/Hirsch
7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
egular
7/18/2019* 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson
8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2019 Subcommittee Assignments
Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing
January February March April May June
3/21 - Baltay/
Thompson
4/4 - Baltay/
Thompson
4/18 – Lew/
Hirsch
6/6 – Furth/
Baltay
July August September October November December
*Chair Furth’s last hearing is July 18, 2019
1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Architectural Review Board
2019 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
August 15, 2019
Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 1 (1st Formal)
788 -796 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use (1st Formal)
656 and 649 Lytton Avenue: Facade Modifications and Other Minor Site
Revisions (1st Formal)
180 El Camino Real: L'Occitane Facade Remodel (1st Formal)
1.b
Packet Pg. 7
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10393)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/1/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 702 Clara Drive: Three Detached Units (2nd Formal)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL. 702 Clara Drive [18PLN-
00068]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval
of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an
Existing 3,560 Square Foot, Four-Unit Apartment Building and
Construction of Three Detached Single-Family Homes Totaling
5,000 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From
the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects). Zoning District: RM-15 (Residential
Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project
Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and
Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Report Summary
The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes
extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies;
that report is available online:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=68812.
The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the
applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the
information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes.
Background
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
On February 7, 2019 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is
available online: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-272019/. The Board’s
comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table:
ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response
Floor to ceiling height on second floor is too
tall. An eight-foot height is preferable.
Second floor ceiling heights are now eight
feet. See Sheets A11, A12, A13 and A23 (to
be revised to consistent with other sheets).
Provide good quality rendering from street
corner.
Revised renderings have been submitted.
See Sheets A15 through A22.
Homes should be custom fit to the lot with
high quality design and materials. Different
floor plans are recommended. Simplify the
designs, including roof forms to fit with the
neighborhood.
All three homes have different floor plans,
with a similar exterior design style using
different character defining elements and
colors. See Sheets A8 through 13 and A22.
Provide a lower fence along Sutter Avenue. There is a 16-foot setback to the six-foot
side property line fence. The six-foot fence
is appropriate at that location and stops at
the front of the building. Paradise
Manzinita are used as border landscaping
along Sutter Avenue. See Sheets A-4 and
L-2.
Front porch is too shallow. The porch dimension increased from four
feet to five feet on two of the three
porches. Home B remains at four feet. See
Sheet A7.
Take advantage of the open space areas. Home A has more open space at the rear
and Home C has more open space in the
front. Home B also has more area in the
rear. The common space on the side along
Sutter Avenue is more structured. See Sheet
A4, L1, L2.
Provide a better relationship with the
streetscape.
The landscape proposal was revised to
provide better connection between the
units and the common open space. See
Sheet L2.
Trash receptacles are not working within the
side yards.
The revised project shows the trash
locations on the left side of the houses and
the fences in-between the units have been
removed providing sufficient space to
maneuver. As a result, this causes a privacy
impact on the first floor. See further
discussion in the Analysis section. See also
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Sheet A4.
Home B had no exterior space for occupants
compared with the other units.
The project has been revised to provide
additional private space in the rear and the
side. It still proportionately has less space
than the other two units. See Sheet A6.
Analysis1
The ARB had commented on several design aspects of the project, which necessitated a
subsequent submittal to include site plan and architectural changes. The prior project included
three detached houses with the same floor plan, with one plan reversed and three distinctive
architectural styles. The revised plan maintains the three detached house proposal and includes
three different floor plans with a similar architectural design style. A revised layout of the
buildings allowed for changes to the overall open space distribution and onsite pedestrian
circulation.
The site includes some development constraints such as street frontage along both Sutter
Avenue and Clara Drive that establish greater setbacks; a 10-foot easement along the southeast
property line that additionally limits the placement of structures and five mature Redwood
trees along Sutter Avenue and two mature Maples along Clara Drive that provide mature
canopies. The placement of the detached units attempt to maximize the allowable building
envelop for the site. Unit A is placed 12 feet from the property line to allow for allow for a
bicycle locker). This is compared to the minimum setbacks in this Zone which are 20 feet along
Sutter Avenue, 16 feet along Clara Drive, and 10 feet at the rear because no portion of the
structure can protrude into the easement. The shared driveway for Units B and C creates more
open space opportunities.
Summary of Changes
At the prior hearing, the Board commented that the site layout did not take advantage of
opportunities to maximize the open space areas. In addition, the Board commented that while
it was okay to have a similar and cohesive design, it was not okay to have the same floor plan
for all of the units.
As a result, the applicant revised the units so that each unit has a different floor plan. While,
the project shares similar architectural elements and design, the elevations are expressed
differently due to the different interior plans. A couple of character defining features include a
bay window for Unit A towards the front, while Unit C has a second-floor balcony that
overlooks the common open space area along Sutter Avenue. Each of the units also have
different color schemes, further providing some variety.
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. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
The revisions appear to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Policy L-3.1 to ensure
that new structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The
proposed design takes cues from the surrounding neighborhood. Sutter Avenue includes other
two-story single-family buildings with gable roof elements and simple architectural designs.
The project is consistent with Finding #2 of the Architectural Review since the project’s design
including the placement of the structures and the siting of open space complements the
neighborhood. The project continues to maintain the large redwood trees along Sutter Avenue.
Prior ARB
Submittal
Current
ARB
Submittal
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Prior ARB
Submittal
Current
ARB
Submittal
The depth of the front porches are increased slightly. The Board may have further comment on
the appropriateness of the porch dimensions. For reference, the proposed lot coverage for the
project is 34.6%, where 35% is the maximum. There may be some potential to shift the Unit B
around to make the porch dimension greater.
The overall landscape and open space plan is revised to include a wider native planting palette.
The open space areas were enhanced with a better connection to the common open space area
along Sutter Avenue that includes seating areas instead of being disconnected.
The open space for Unit B is improved, however, is still smaller than the open space provided
for the other two units. Keeping the units detached, coupled with the setback and easement
constraints of the site limits the “rear yard” open space potential for the project. The side yards
are more usable since the fences between the units have been removed. However, the
removal of fencing between the units causes privacy impacts.
Staff would appreciate the ARB’s comments on the subject of privacy as it relates to Finding #2.
Privacy impacts may include views between first floor windows, views from the second floor
deck onto adjacent properties, and views from stairway windows. Once solution to address
first floor privacy is to reintroduce the side yard fencing and move any air conditioning
condensers and bicycle lockers to the rear of the units to provide a clear path for safety
personal.
While the proposed second floor balcony for Unit C provides some visual interest to the
elevation and an outdoor amenity for the occupants, it is recommended that another Arbutus
tree be planted directly in line with the balcony to create a buffer between the balcony and the
adjacent building at 740 Sutter Avenue to be consistent with Finding #2.
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
The Board should also provide comment on the large windows that are located in the stairwells
facing the sides of the buildings for any privacy impacts. It is recommended that these be
treated with obscured material or made smaller.
Overall, the revisions to the project make the project consistent with the required findings for
the Architectural Review and continue, on balance, to be consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental Review
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is Categorically Exempt under
Class 32 15332 In-Fill Developments and Class 3 for new small structures since three single
family (up to four multi-family) structures are proposed. Additional information can be found
on the project webpage at bit.ly/702Clara.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least
ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post
on July 19, 2019, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July
22, 2019, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may:
1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions;
2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or
3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information
Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(408) 340-5642 x109 (650) 329-2575
sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)
Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)
2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)
Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)
Attachment E: Applicant Response to ARB Comments (PDF)
Attachment F: Project Plans and Environmental Review (DOCX)
2
Packet Pg. 14
R-1
2.a
Packet Pg. 15
ATTACHMENT B
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
702 Clara Drive
18PLN-00068
In order for the ARB to make a recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the
following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC.
Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility
requirements), and any relevant design guides.
The following are relevant Comprehensive Goals and Policies:
Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its
surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact,
efficient development pattern.
Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.
Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote
personal safety, public health and wellbeing; and to enhance a sense of community
safety.
H1.4 POLICY Ensure that new developments provide appropriate transitions from higher
density development to single-family and low-density residential districts to preserve
neighborhood character.
H1.2 POLICY Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing
neighborhoods.
While the project proposes a decrease in one dwelling unit from the existing condition, on
balance, the project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies.
The project is consistent with the applicable Zoning development standards.
Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors,
2.b
Packet Pg. 16
and the general community,
b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively
to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when
relevant,
c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district,
d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses
and land use designations,
e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent
residential areas.
The project’s design including the placement of the structures and siting of open space
complements the neighborhood, the streetscape and overall internal sense of order for the
site. The project preserves and protects the existing large street trees along Sutter Avenue and
Clara Drive.
The project is subject to the following context-based findings contained with PAMC 18.13.060:
Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and
findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to
provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a
multi-family district. The purpose is to encourage development in a multi-family district to be
responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote
the establishment of pedestrian oriented design.
1. Massing and Building Facades
Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with
Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with street(s) through elements.
The project includes three individual plan types. The units share an architectural style using
different color. Unit A includes a bay window, while Unit C includes a second floor balcony
overlooking the open space along Sutter Avenue. The scale of the structures is in keeping
with the surrounding neighborhood. All of the units include materials and architectural
elements that are consistent with the architectural style of the unit.
2. Low Density Transitions
Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care shall
be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties.
The project is consistent with the zoning code development standards. The transition,
massing and orientation of the structures provide privacy and is compatible with neighboring
properties and internally within the project.
2.b
Packet Pg. 17
3. Project Open Space
Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and
visitors of a site.
The project provides adequate amount of open space in areas on the site that are most
appropriate for use and privacy. The project provides private open space within fenced areas
accessed only by each individual unit and provides a large common open space area
protected by trees and shrubs along the street.
4. Parking Designs
Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of
the project or detract from the pedestrian environment.
Each unit includes a street-facing garage and uncovered parking.
5. Large (multi-acre) Sites
Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns
are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood.
The project site does not meet the criteria to be considered a large site.
6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots
Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units
(Figure 6-1), attached rowhouses/townhouses (Figure 6-2), and cottage clusters in order to
achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development.
The project includes three detached units on a single parcel. Each unit has an individual plan
type with similar architectural elements used throughout. Multi-family and single-family
developments surround the subject parcel and the proposed project serves as an appropriate
transition between the two types of development.
7. Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be
incorporated into the project.
As noted in Findings #6, the project is consistent with the City’s Green Building Codes.
Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details
that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
The project includes stucco finishes, a combination of gable and hip roof elements, porches,
2.b
Packet Pg. 18
bay windows and balconies. The scale of the structures and the use of materials are in keeping
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g.
convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of
open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
The project will function similarly to a site with three detached units. Each unit will include its
own garage and bicycle locker. Building’s B and C share a driveway, which will reduce the
amount of curb cuts and potential pedestrian and bicyclist conflicts with vehicles entering the
driveways. The shared driveways maximize the amount of open space and pervious area for the
project site.
Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its
surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical,
regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat
that can be appropriately maintained.
The plant palette on Sheet L-3 demonstrates that the majority of the plantings are native. The
project maintains seven significant sized street trees. (four Trident Maples and three Coast
Redwoods).
Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas
related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning.
The project is consistent with the City’s Green Building Code as detailed on Sheets GB-1 and GB-
2 of the plan set.
2.b
Packet Pg. 19
Performance Criteria
PAMC 18.23
Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following performance criteria are intended to provide additional
standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family,
commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these
zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The
criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects
compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the
proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and
businesses.
Performance Criteria Project Consistency
18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
Assure that development provides adequate and
accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the
storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate
containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas
are located as far from abutting residences as is
reasonably possible.
The project proposes individual
totes for recycling and garage pick
up.
18.23.030 Lighting
To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or
nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways.
The project proposes light fixtures
that are appropriate with the
scale of the buildings and are
typical for individual residential
units.
18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities
The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial
businesses abutting (either directly or across the street)
or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or
properties with existing residential uses located within
nonresidential zones, with operations or activities
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Operations subject to this code may include, but are not
limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning,
and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not
include garbage pick- up.
Not applicable.
18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping
Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties
with existing residential uses located within
nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be
The project is a residential project
with three detached units.
Landscaping is appropriate and
2.b
Packet Pg. 20
Performance Criteria Project Consistency
protected by screening from public view all mechanical
equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be
used to integrate a project design into the surrounding
neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between
properties where appropriate.
complements the surrounding
neighboring properties.
18.23.060 Noise and Vibration
The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and
vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially
zoned properties or properties with existing residential
uses located within nonresidential zones (residential
properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises
and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial
or commercially zoned properties. Design of new
projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and
refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air
conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby
residential properties. New equipment, whether
mounted on the exterior of the building or located
interior to a building, which requires only a building
permit, shall also be subject to these requirements.
It is expected that the operation
and use of the residential units
would be consistent with the
neighboring properties.
18.23.070 Parking
The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on
adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties
with existing residential uses located within
nonresidential zones.
Street-facing garages are
proposed with uncovered parking
in front of the garages.
18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access
The guidelines regarding site access impacts are
intended to minimize conflicts between residential
vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more
intensive traffic associated with commercial and
industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and
bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project
site.
The project includes three
detached units with independent
garages and bicycle lockers
located in the rear of each lot.
18.23.090 Air Quality
The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer
residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or
toxic air contaminants.
The project is a detached
residential project and would its
occupants would use typical
household supplies and cleaners.
2.b
Packet Pg. 21
Performance Criteria Project Consistency
18.23.100 Hazardous Materials
In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any
use on a development site that will entail the storage,
use or handling of hazardous materials (including
hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt
quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division
20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code.
It is not anticipated that the users
of the units would store
hazardous materials onsite.
2.b
Packet Pg. 22
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
702 Clara Drive
18PLN-00068
________________________________________________________________________
PLANNING DIVISION
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans
entitled, "702 Clara Dr Palo Alto, CA 94303,” stamped as received by the City on July 16, 2019 on
file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified
by these conditions of approval.
2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning,
Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed
on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building
permits shall incorporate the following changes:
a. Update Sheet A23 to be consistent with other building sections of the project showing a
floor to ceiling height of eight (8) feet for the second floor of all units.
4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review
and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the
project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning
Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s
responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project
planner’s attention.
5. OBSCURED/TRANSLUCENT GLAZING. All obscure glazing, as shown on the plan set, shall be
permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Obscure glazing is either
decorative glazing that does not allow views through placed into the window frame or acid etched
or similar permanent alteration of the glass. Films or like additions to clear glass are not permitted
where obscure glazing is shown. Obscure glazing shall not be altered in the future and shall be
replaced with like materials if damaged. If operable, these windows shall open towards the public
right-of-way.
6. UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment
and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed
within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain.
7. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of
required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In
accordance with Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any
2.c
Packet Pg. 23
machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more
than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.
8. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the
Building Permit plans.
a. Where the existing fence is located off the subject property and/or where the existing
fence is failing, a new Code compliant fence shall be constructed.
9. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the
original date of approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made
prior to expiration.
10. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall
be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary.
11. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties
and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such
action with attorneys of its own choice.
12. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Since four existing units are being demolished and three new units
are being constructed, no development impact fees are due.
13. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial
compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any
revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to;
materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing
at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection.
GREEN BUILDING
14. The project is a new construction residential building of any size and therefore must meet the
California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local
amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with
local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-
party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select a
Green Building Special Inspector from the City’s list of approved inspectors. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord.
5393 § 1, 2016)
2.c
Packet Pg. 24
*Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined
in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California
Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18 as described in the Energy
Reach Code section of this letter.
15. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO): The project is a residential rehabilitated
project with an aggregate landscape area of 2,500 square feet or more included in the project
scope of work and therefore shall comply with the requirements of Prescriptive Compliance
Pathway, Appendix D (§492- Appendix D). Please see the Outdoor Water Efficiency Webpage for
compliance documentation. (MWELO Title 23, Chapter 2.7)
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
16. Public Utility Easement is shown on architectural sheet. Please verify and show PUE on civil sheets
and topographic survey sheets. Structures, including garages and roof overhangs shall not be
constructed in PUEs.
17. SUBDIVISION: If condominium units are proposed, a Preliminary Parcel Map and a Parcel Map, are
required for the proposed development. The applicant shall submit a minor subdivision application
to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Show all existing and proposed
dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that
the Parcel map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or
Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall
be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State
Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls.
18. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a
licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows
to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a
minimum of five percent (5%). Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well
as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases
drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties will not be allowed. Public
Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter but
encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to
landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for
New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717
19. 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
20. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: This project creates or replaces 500 square feet or more of
impervious area, the applicant needs to fill out the impervious area worksheet and submit it with
the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and
2.c
Packet Pg. 25
instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2718
21. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and/or Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not
stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.”
Construction phasing shall be coordinated to keep materials and equipment onsite.
22. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace the sidewalks,
curbs and gutters in the public right-of-way along both frontages of the property. The sidewalks
associated with the new driveways must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the
standard 4” thick) section. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the
extent of the replacement work.
23. STREET: As part of this project, the applicant must resurface the full width of the streets along both
frontages of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the
extent of the resurfacing work.
24. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the public right-of-way:
“Any construction within the city’s public right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards
by a licensed contractor. The contractor must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works
at the Development Center. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE
BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.”
25. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Provide a note adjacent to
street trees: “Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or
pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-
496-5953).” Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements.
26. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor is required to submit a logistics
plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the
City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes,
material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust
control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding
properties , and schedule of work.”
27. RESIDENTIAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project triggers the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that
create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant
must implement one or more of the following site design measures:
a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.
b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.
d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.
2.c
Packet Pg. 26
e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.
f. Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces.
PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE
28. Installation of bio-infiltration basins, landscape planting, and irrigation within tree protection zones
of existing trees must be supervised by the project arborist. Excavation must be done with air,
hydro, or hand tools to avoid damage to tree roots. Tree protection fencing may be temporarily
removed for this purpose, but must be re-installed directly following completion of the basins.
29. Construction of driveways and pathways within tree protection zones of existing trees must be
supervised by the project arborist. Excavation must be done with air, hydro, or hand tools to avoid
damage to tree roots. A geo-grid or geo-textile material shall be installed as a base layer to
minimize excavation and reduce underlying compaction of soil. Tree protection fencing may be
temporarily removed for this purpose, but must be re-installed directly following completion.
30. Tree protection zones and tree protection fencing alignments shall be shown on the proposed site
plan, sheet A.3.
31. The tree protection report shall be edited to note that maple trees identified as trees 1,2,6, and 7
are City-owned street trees.
32. All instructions/recommendations in the tree protection report found on pages AR1-AR5 shall be
strictly adhered to.6. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all
relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or
existing) underground utility or curb cut.
a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban
Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation
adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).”
b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using
Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall
note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball.
33. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited.
a. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-
of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.”
b. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to
at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or
bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch.
c. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be
included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed
at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve
2.c
Packet Pg. 27
from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency
Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited.
34. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and
inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in
the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The
required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the
project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report
sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent
monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using
the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11.
35. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed
and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of
acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW
or Urban Forestry.
36. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting,
injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section
2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or
protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25.10. GENERAL. The following
general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material,
topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under
and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated,
aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
37. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for
staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire
building permit plan set submittal and, (b) verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and
changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site
monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet
T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to
Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City.
38. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the
required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing
shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project.
39. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or
trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with
manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with
diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring
2.c
Packet Pg. 28
method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be
printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor.
40. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. Project site arborist will protect
and monitor neighboring trees/protected redwood/protected oak during construction and share
information with the tree owner. All work shall be done in conformance with State regulations so
as to ensure the long term health of the tree. Project site arborist will request access to the tree on
the neighboring property as necessary to measure an exact diameter, assess condition, and/or
perform treatment. If access is not granted, monitoring and any necessary treatment will be
performed from the project site.
UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER
41. The applicant shall submit a completed Water-Gas-Wastewater Service Connection Application -
Load Sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested
for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture
units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the
combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain).
42. 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,
and any other required utilities.
43. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for
all 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.
44. 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.
45. Each home shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. If this is a single parcel or
Condominium Project, the development will be served with one water service with a manifold for
individual water meters, and one sewer lateral and City cleanout connected to the public sewer
collection system.
46. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s
or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or
other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
2.c
Packet Pg. 29
FIRE DEPARTMENT
47. Install a NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system in each house under separate permit
BUILDING DIVISION
48. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit
application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance,
Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and
are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval:
a. A building permit is required for construction using the current applicable codes: CRC,
CPC, CMC, CEC, CEnC, CalGreen and PAMC.
b. 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.
STORM WATER PROTECTION
49. Stormwater treatment measures
a. Shall meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements.
b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3
c. Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details.
50. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org)
a. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment.
b. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the
BayFriendly Landscape Guidelines:
http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bayfriendly-landscape-guidelines-
sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to
the building plans.
c. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the
building plans.
51. Stormwater quality protection
a. Trash and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having
rainwater enter the containers.
b. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed).
c. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping.
2.c
Packet Pg. 30
UTILITIES ELECTRIC
52. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service
requirements noted during plan review.
53. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
54. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from
the service point to the customer’s panel. The design and installation shall be according to the
City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
55. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property
for City use.
56. All three electric meters and main disconnect must be located at the same location.
2.c
Packet Pg. 31
ATTACHMENT D
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
702 Clara Drive, 18PLN-00068
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-20 DISTRICT)
Regulation Required/Allowed Proposed
Unit A Unit B Unit C
Minimum Site Area,
Width and Depth
8,500 sf area, 70-foot
width, 100-foot depth 10,000 sf, 80-foot width, 125-foot depth
Maximum Residential
Density
20 units per 1 acre (4.6
units) 3 total units
Minimum Front Yard 20 feet (Sutter Ave.) 20 feet (to the closest front exterior wall of Unit A)
Min Street Rear Yard 16 feet (Clara Drive) 16 feet
Min Interior Side
Yard (for lots
w/widths of > 70 feet
10 feet 12 feet
Max. Building Height 30 feet 25 feet, ¼ inch
Side Yard Daylight
Plane
10 feet at interior side lot
line then 45-degree angle Compliant
Rear Yard Daylight
Plane
10 feet at rear setback
line then 45-degree angle Compliant
Max. Site Coverage
35% (plus an additional
5% for covered patios or
overhangs)
34% (3,471 sf)
Max. Total Floor Area
Ratio 0.5:1 0.49:1 (5,007 sf)
Minimum Site Open
Space 35% (3,500 sf) 48.7% (4,880 sf)
Minimum Usable
Open Space 150 sf per unit 1,406.66 sf 1,226.66 sf 1,281.66 sf
Minimum Common
Open Space 75 sf per unit 402.66 sf per unit for a total of 1,208 sf
Minimum Private
Open Space 50 sf per unit
1,004 sf
(104.52 sf – rear
patio)
824 sf
(94.55 sf – rear
patio)
879 sf
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking)
for Multiple-Family Residential
Type Required Proposed
Vehicle Parking Two (2) spaces per unit, of which at least one
space per unit must be covered.
Two (2) spaces per unit, with
each unit providing one (1)
covered parking space
Bicycle Parking One (1) Long-term bicycle parking space Three (3) total; one (1) for each
unit
2.d
Packet Pg. 32
GILBERT FERNANDEZ III INTERIOR DESIGNER
RE: City of Palo Alto
Architectural Review Board
May 2, 2019
Architectural Review Board,
This letter is to address the project description of the proposed improvements required for the
design review of address 702 Clara Drive, Palo Alto CA 94303.
A.2nd floor has been changed to 8’ ceiling to reduce overall height.
B.A higher quality rendering has been added to sheet A15 from the corner of Clara and Sutter.
C.Each homes design has been revised to show diversity and simplicity.
D.The fence along Sutter Ave has been revised to landscape.
E.Front porches have been revised to be an entrance on home A and usable for homes B &C.
F.Open spaces have been revised to be used for landscape and pavers for useable/resting
area.
G.The design has been revise to be more simple to provide a better relationship to the
streetscape.
H.Trash areas have been moved to the side yard with the new designs to create a larger walk
way.
I.Home B now has a private exterior space with the fencing division.
J.Each homes design has been revised to be more simple.
K.Please see the civil design for the drainage.
L.Landscaping has been added in front of Home C.
M.Parking for home A has been moved to the side (easement area). Also the furnace entrance
has been added to the easement area.
N.The landing area for the study room was needed to be in the rear yard due to the side
easement.
O.All designs have one garage parking and one uncovered parking. Two curb cuts have been
kept to enter into these parkings.
P.Long access to Redwood rest area for Home A and B, There are multiple rest areas for our
current design.
Q.Fencing between the homes have been removed to allow a larger airflow/walk way.
Regards,
Gilbert Fernandez
408-722-0057
2.e
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment F
Project Plans and In-Fill Exemption
Hardcopies of project plans and the Initial Study are provided to Board members. These plans
and environmental documents are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning
and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton
Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll to find “702 Clara Drive” and click the address link
3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial
Study and other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4230
2.f
Packet Pg. 34
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10360)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/1/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 486 Hamilton Ave: Mixed-use Building (Prelim)
Title: 486 Hamilton Avenue [19PLN-00115]: Request for Preliminary
Architectural Review of a new Four Story Mixed use Project
Including 2,457 Square Feet of Retail Space, 2,049 Square Feet
of Office Space, and Four (4) Residential Units. Environmental
Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: CD-C(P)
(Downtown Commerical). For More Information Contact the
Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB):
1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested.
Report Summary
The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to
the applicant and Board members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either
in support or against the project.
As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Development Services Department has
only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A
comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design
criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly,
there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal
regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review.
Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or
other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application.
3
Packet Pg. 35
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual
project to the Board and receive initial comments. Board members may identify aspects of the
project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or
areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community
members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project.
Background
Project Information
Owner: Cheshill Palo Alto, LLC
Architect: Le Architecture
Representative: Kim Tran
Legal Counsel: None
Property Information
Address: 486 Hamilton Avenue
Neighborhood: University South
Lot Dimensions & Area: 125 feet x 44 feet (5,375 square feet)
Housing Inventory Site: No
Located w/in a Plume: No
Protected/Heritage Trees: None on-site; Street trees to remain
Historic Resource(s): None currently identified; would need to address through CEQA
process
Existing Improvement(s): 2,457 square feet; one-story; 20 feet tall; built in 1956
Existing Land Use(s): Commercial—restaurant, dry cleaners
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: CD-C(P) (offices)
West: CD-C(P) (office, retail)
East: CD-C(P) (office) built in 1898
South: CD-C(P) (beauty salon)
Aerial View of Property:
3
Packet Pg. 36
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Source: Google maps (2019)
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation:
Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District
[CD-C(P)]
Comp. Plan Designation: Community Commercial (CC)
Context-Based
Design Criteria: Yes
Downtown Urban
Design Guide: Yes
South of Forest Avenue
Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable
Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable
3
Packet Pg. 37
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
El Camino Real Design
Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable
Proximity to Residential
Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable
Located w/in Airport
Influence Area: Not Applicable
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: None
PTC: None
HRB: None
ARB: None
Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and surface parking lot at 486
Hamilton Avenue and Cowper Street. In its place, the applicant would construct a new four-
story, mixed-use building, including four residential units (1,040 average square feet), retail
space (2,088 square feet), and office space (2,119 square feet) with parking located within the
building (mechanical puzzle lift and surface parking).
The site is zoned CD-C(P) and is surrounded by commercial type uses. The vicinity includes
buildings that are single story through four stories in height. Within the same block of Cowper
Street there is a high-rise building (12-stories).
The first floor of the building would include parking, utility rooms, shared circulation and retail
space. The second floor of the building includes more shared circulation, retail space and a
residential unit. The third level includes shared circulation, office space and a residential unit.
The fourth floor includes two residential units. The rooftop does not offer any usable space but
has access via a stairwell.
The exterior of the proposed building would have a contemporary style with plaster, window-
wall system(s), and wire mesh panels for balcony guardrails and screening of the parking
facility. A metal and glass overhead sectional door is proposed for the entry to the garage. The
street elevations include extensive fenestration and balcony spaces. The opposite elevations
(north and south) offer fewer openings with more solid plaster surfaces.
Figure 1: Northwest Corner
3
Packet Pg. 38
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Source Le Architecture, 2019
Figure 2: Southwest Corner
Source: Le Architecture, 2019
3
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
The open space amenities are provided for on balconies with deer grass proposed for the
landscaping throughout the project.
Parking is provided in a four-bay mechanical puzzle lift (18 spaces) and four surface spaces. All
parking is located within the building. The mechanical lift system is a multi-level system that is
partially subgrade and partially above grade. The system occupies 19’-9” below grade and 22’-
6” above grade and being 34 feet in width and 20 feet in depth within the building.
Anticipated Entitlements:
The following discretionary applications are anticipated:
Architectural Review – Major (AR). In accordance with PAMC 18.76.020 (2)(B), the
construction of a multiple-family project with three or more units require the approval
of a Major AR. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC
18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are
forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five
business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to
the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against
specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project.
Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.
Discussion
Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations
and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This
information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will
occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns.
At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to
the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that
relate to:
Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context /
Transitions in scale to adjacent properties /
Scale and Mass (Finding #2)
With each new development in the area, it transitions from a neighborhood of one and
two stories buildings to a neighborhood of 50-foot buildings. How to best make the
transition from existing buildings to this proposal is a good question to explore.
As proposed, the project includes stairway access to the roof. This stairway access
exceeds the height limit. The applicant may redesign the access to the roof to only allow
a hatch or look into adding a roof garden in accordance with PAMC 18.40.230.
Based on PAMC 18.18.030(a), gross floor area also includes all covered at-grade or
above-grade parking for non-residential uses. For this reason, staff counts the first floor
of the parking toward gross floor area. The project presently exceeds the floor area ratio
3
Packet Pg. 40
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
maximum because of the covered parking. The parking within the puzzle lift above the
ground level is not counted since this is vaulted space with no floors.
The parking spaces move independently within the puzzle lift. According to the Zoning
Code, mechanical parking is only allowed for residential and office and not retail spaces.
The project requires five retail parking spaces. Four spaces are located on the surface
within the garage, therefore, the project is short one required surface parking space.
The applicant may wish to pursue a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program. This site is outside of the Downtown Parking Assessment District and may not
purchase in-lieu parking.
Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials (Finding #2 & #3)
The proposed materials are stucco, storefront windows, nana wall on the ground floor,
wire mesh for guardrails and aluminum shade canopies.
The surrounding buildings include Spanish and contemporary designs. There are a mix of
older mid-century modern design buildings.
Pedestrian-orientation and design (Finding #4)
There is a lot of opportunity on the first floor to accommodate pedestrian activity. The
project includes bi-folding doors for the corner retail space. Immediately adjacent to the
space includes flatwork area that is additionally setback approximately eight to nine feet
to provide for areas with potted plants. No outdoor seating is proposed at this time.
Consideration to any applicable policy documents (Downtown Urban Guide)
The project is a part of the Hamilton Avenue District
o Promote as an active mixed-use district which comfortably accommodates larger
scale commercial office, civic, and institutional buildings.
The project proposes a mixed-use development
o Maintain Hamilton Avenue as a tree-lined pedestrian environment with
complimentary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity.
The proposed project would maintain existing street trees and creates a
wide sidewalk area outside of the retail space.
Consideration of landscaping (Finding #5)
The project includes deer grass, which is drought tolerant and indigenous. There is
ample area at the ground floor and on the balconies for additional potted plants or
trees.
Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any (Finding #5)
There is currently no extensive vegetation on the property. However, this gives
opportunity to provide more vegetation that is native and drought tolerant.
Next Steps
3
Packet Pg. 41
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to
file a formal application.
Environmental Review
The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not
subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal
application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(408) 340-5642 X109 (650) 329-2575
sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)
Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)
Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)
Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)
Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 42
3.a
Packet Pg. 43
ATTACHMENT C
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply
with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the
PAMC.
Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility
requirements), and any relevant design guides.
Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors,
and the general community,
b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively
to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when
relevant,
c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district,
d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses
and land use designations,
e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent
residential areas.
Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details
that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g.
convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of
open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its
surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical,
regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat
that can be appropriately maintained.
Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas
related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning.
3.b
Packet Pg. 44
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT C
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
486 Hamilton Avenue, 19PLN-00115
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT)
Mixed-Use Development Standards
Regulation Required Existing Proposed
Minimum Building Setback
Front Yard (Cowper Street) None Required 7 feet 12 feet = first floor
0 feet = Upper floors
Rear Yard
10 feet for residential
portion; no requirement for
commercial portion
59 feet 0 feet = Levels 1 & 2
19’- 6” = Levels 3 &
4
Decks encroach 2’-
4” into setback
Interior and Street Side Yard
None Required 0 feet 0 feet
Maximum Site Coverage
(building footprint)
None Required 2,537 sf 5,375 sf
Landscape Open Space
Coverage
20%
1,000 sf
1%
76 sf
23%
1,240 sf
Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit 0 sf 1,984 sf (only
counted contiguous
areas to units)
Maximum Height 50 feet 18 feet 49 ft 8 inches,
stairway at 57 ft
Daylight Plane for lot lines
abutting one or more
residential zoning districts or
a residential PC district
Daylight plane height and
slope identical to those of the
most restrictive residential
zone abutting the lot line
Not applicable Not applicable
Residential Density (net) No maximum 0 33.3 du/ac
Maximum Weighted Average
Residential Unit Size
1,500 sf per unit Not Applicable 1,040 sf
Maximum Nonresidential
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
1.0:1 FAR
0.47:1 FAR
2,537 sf
1.0:1 + 0.2:1 FAR
5,375 sf + 1,152 sf
(above grade
parking for non-
residential spaces)
Maximum Residential Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
1.0:1 Not applicable 1.0:1 FAR
5,375 sf
Total Floor Area Ratio 2.0:1
10,750 sf
0.47:1
2,537 sf
2.2:1
11,902 sf
18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all
development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All
mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3.c
Packet Pg. 45
Page 2 of 2
18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a
commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall
promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design.
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)
for Mixed-Use Projects
Type Required Existing Proposed
Vehicle Parking
Residential: 2/unit = 8
Retail (intensive):
1,045/200 = 5.2
Office:
2,118 sf / 200 sf = 8.5 spaces
Total: 22 spaces
9 spaces
22 spaces
Bicycle Parking Residential: 1 Long-term per
unit (4)
Retail: 1 per 3,500 sf =
1 long-term & 1 short-term
Office: 1 per 2,500 sf =
1 long-term & 1 short-term
Total = 6 long-term &
2 short-term
0 Long Term: 6
Short Term: 2
Loading Space Retail: 0 – 4,999 = 0
Office: 0 – 4,999 sf = 0
0 0
PAMC 18.52.040 Table 1(4): First 1,500 sf of retail is excluded from parking requirement.
3.c
Packet Pg. 46
Project Title 486 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
APN 120-16-008
Zoning CD-C (P)
Focus for Preliminary Review
We would like the Board to focus on the general feasibility of the project.
Scope of Work
The project site is located in downtown Palo Alto, on the corner of Hamilton Ave and Cowper St. The
proposed project would involve the construction of a new 4-story mixed-use project including 2,088 SF
of ground and second floor retail, 2,118 SF of office on the third floor, and 4 three-bedroom residential
units on the second, third and fourth floors. The project would include a total of 22 on-site parking
spaces.
Total gross floor area for the mixed-used project would be 10,750 SF.
Existing and Proposed Uses
The 0.12-acre site currently has a one-story structure built in 1956 and does not fall under historic
status. There is also a surface parking lot with 8 total spaces.
The proposed project will fully replace the original 2,456 SF of retail over two levels. The ground floor
retail will utilize a Nana door system to promote and activate pedestrian street activity. The covered
outdoor deck at the second level allows for further interaction with the street below. The office at the
third level brings additional office space to downtown Palo Alto. The three-bedroom units are designed
to be compact and efficient so as to maximize the housing availability downtown. The multi-family and
commercial uses in downtown Palo Alto allow it to fully integrate a pedestrian-transit oriented lifestyle.
Design Concept
The project site is located at the corner of Hamilton and Cowper street. With mild winters, spectacular
summer temperatures, and an abundance of pedestrian foot traffic, we wanted the building to respond
positively to both of these elements. On the street level at the corner of Hamilton and Cowper, we used
large operable doors which spans from one end of the space to the other end to break down the barrier
from the outdoor space and the indoor space. During times of great weather, this large opening can be
opened up to let the gentle breezes flow through the space and encourage the pedestrians into this
space. On the second level, a large terrace has been added near the center of the building to encourage
the building occupants to enjoy Palo Alto’s temperate climate while under cover. Large openings have
3.d
Packet Pg. 47
been added to the front and rear of this outdoor terrace bringing in an abundance of light, air, and to
promote the gentle cross breezes. Lastly, we tried to include large outdoor decks on most of the
residential units so that they would be able to enjoy the ambiance that Palo Alto has to offer.
Parking and Site Access
The proposed project would provide a total of 22 parking spaces through the use of a mechanical lift
system that would yield eighteen spaces along with two accessible spaces and two non-mechanical
spaces on grade. We believe that the location in downtown Palo Alto, along with the proximity to the
Caltrain station 0.6 miles away, allows an opportunity for residents, office workers and retail patrons to
utilize all forms of public transportation to access the site.
Short-term bicycle parking would be provided along Hamilton Street, and long-term bicycle parking
would be provided in storage lockers on the upper floors.
Vehicular access would be provided from Hamilton Avenue. Pedestrians would access the proposed
structure from Hamilton Ave.
Landscaping
The project site would have landscape coverage of approximately 1,240 square feet (approximately 23%
of the entire project site).
The design intent regarding landscaping focuses on water conservation and ease of care and upkeep.
Because of this, we have chosen water-efficient shrubs. The ground level landscaping consists of
permeable pavers to allow groundwater access to the ground.
There are 6 street trees adjacent to the site. All will be preserved and protected during construction per
City of Palo Alto standards.
Relationship to Existing Conditions on Site
The project site currently has a one-story retail structure built in 1956 and a surface parking lot. It is
located near Downtown Palo Alto in a neighborhood characterized by both commercial and residential
uses. The site is on the south-east corner of Hamilton and Cowper, bordered by a variety of one, two-
and three-story buildings at the adjacent corners.
The proposed project would maximize the vertical potential for the lot, incorporating both the
commercial and residential aspects of the neighborhood into one structure. Its proposed height of 50’
would match that of neighboring buildings 505 Hamilton at its diagonal and 611 Cowper across the
street.
It would also provide 22 parking spaces, including both accessible and EVSE spaces that the surface lot
currently does not provide.
3.d
Packet Pg. 48
Materials, colors, and construction methods to be used
The four-story structure will be constructed from light steel framing and a window wall system. The
ground floor retail will utilize a Nana door system so as to blur the line between the street and the
context of the building.
Minimal excavation would occur since there is no proposed subterranean parking garage and the site is
relatively flat. Approximately 350 cubic yards of dirt will be removed for the mechanical lift parking
system.
3.d
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment E
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the
public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the
5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “486 Hamilton Avenue” and click the address link
3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and
other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4568&TargetID=319
3.e
Packet Pg. 50
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10523)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 8/1/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 3265 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Louvre Window
and Stair Mesh
Title: 3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312]: Subcommittee Review of
a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return
With Project Changes Related to Louvre Window and Stair Well
Trellis Mesh. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated
Negative Declaration Prepared for 15PLN-00312. Zoning
District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information
Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-
group.us
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions.
Background
On June 21, 2018, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the subject
project. At the Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that required certain project
elements return to the ARB subcommittee. Below are the items that were requested to return
to the subcommittee and the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments:
Architecture Review Condition:
The louvre window screen on the elevation fronting El Camino Real shall be designed to
have a better opening and filtered light consistent with the El Camino Real Design
Guideline Goals.
Applicant’s Response:
4
Packet Pg. 51
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The applicant has proposed three options for the window with two frame designs. The
approved window is shown in Figure 1, while the proposed windows are shown in Figure
2. The window options can be described as moving from a wide window to a narrower
window. Figure 3 provides sample images of the window frames.
Figure 1 – Approved front Elevation
Figure 2 – Three Proposed Window Designs
Option 1 Option 2
4
Packet Pg. 52
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Option 3
Figure 3 – Two Proposed Window Frames
Window Frame – Option 1 Window Frame – Option 2
4
Packet Pg. 53
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
Architecture Review Condition:
Rework the mesh around the stairs to make it less oppressive.
Applicant’s Response:
The applicant has proposed two stair design options. These are described in further
detail in Attachment A, ARB Subcommittee letter. Option One proposes a combination of
typical railing designs at landings and a flowing rhythm of one-by-one metal bars at the center
stair run. Option Two proposes flowing rhythm metal bar option at entire system. Figure 4
shows the approved mesh while Figure 5 shows the two options.
Figure 4 – Approved Mesh Around Stairs
4
Packet Pg. 54
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Stair Option 1
4
Packet Pg. 55
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Stair Option 2
A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online:
https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3/
The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the
proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Adam Petersen, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(408) 340.5642 x 106 (650) 329-2575
apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: April 5, 2018 ARB Minutes (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
4
Packet Pg. 56
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)
Attachment C: Project Plans (DOCX)
4
Packet Pg. 57
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Baltay, Board Member Alexander Lew, Robert Gooyer,
Osma Thompson
Absent:
Chair Furth: Good morning. Welcome to the April 5th meeting of the Architectural Review Board. Could we
have the roll call, please? Thanks.
Oral Communications
Chair Furth: Now is the time for any member of the public who wishes to do so to speak to the ARB on a
matter not on the agenda but within our purview. Are there any…
Board Member Lew: We do have one. David Carnahan.
Chair Furth: Do we have one? We have David. I believe there’s a card I’ve just buried it. Mr. Carnahan.
For the tape, C-a-r-n-a-h-a-n I think.
Mr. David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk: Good morning Chair Furth and Commissioners or Board
Members. Please don’t bury me anywhere else today. I’m here to speak with you about Board and
Commission recruitment. We’ve -- the City’s extended the application deadline for one position on the
Historic Resources Board and three positions on the Human Relations Commission. So, we’re hoping that
you all if you have not yet or if you have reached out to community members and would be willing to
reach out to a few more to see if they are interested in either of these bodies. The deadline is now April
23rd at 5:30 p.m. Again, we’re looking for – to fill one position on the Historic Resources Board and three
on the Human Relations Commission. I will pass out flyers for you to serve as a reminder to reach out to
a few folks to consider having them consider applying.
Chair Furth: Thank you and how is it that we have an opening on the Historic Resources Board?
Mr. Carnahan: Beth Bunnenberg resigned prior to the end of her term.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Certainly, she’s given us long and wonderful service.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Furth: Alright any agenda changes, additions or deletions Staff? Board Members?
City Official Reports
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES: April 5, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
4.a
Packet Pg. 58
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2),
Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals, and 3) Tentative Future
Agenda items.
Chair Furth: Then let’s go ahead to City official reports. Our schedule, attendance, reports on matters
that have been approved. Any comments? Just note that two of us are staying behind today for
subcommittee. Not me and we have at our next meeting 2755 El Camino Real, a 57-unit proposal back
for its third review and a first review on 3945 El Camino Real, Comfort Inn renovation. Thank you.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312]: Request
for Architectural Review for a new Three Story Mixed Use Project with 282 Square Feet of
Commercial Space and Three Residential Units (4,492 Square Feet). The Applicant Also Seeks a
Variance to the Minimum Mixed-use Ground Floor Commercial Floor Area Ratio and Design
Enhancement Exception to Reduce the Required Driveway Width From 20-Feet to 16-Feet six-
Inches. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was
Circulated for Public Comment From March 23, 2018 to April 23, 2018. Zoning District: CS
(Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the City’s Consultant and Project Planner
Adam Petersen at APetersen@m-group.us.
Chair Furth: Alright if we could have Item Number Two which is a public hearing/quasi-judicial on 3265 El
Camino Real. This is a request for architectural review for a new three-story mixed-use project with 280-
square feet of commercial space and three residential units totaling about 4,500-square feet. There’s a
request for a Variance to the minimum mixed-use ground floor commercial floor area ratio and a request
for a Design Enhancement Exception to reduce the required driveway width from 20-feet to 16-feet 6-
inches. A Negative Declaration has been circulated for our consideration and I guess the comment period
has not yet ended is that correct?
Mr. Adam Petersen, Project Planner: That’s correct.
Chair Furth: Public comment period will continue till April 23rd.
Mr. Petersen: Correct.
Chair Furth: Alright. Staff report, please.
Mr. Petersen: Alright good morning Chair Furth, Members of the Architectural Review Board. I’m Adam
Petersen from the Planning and Community Environment Department. I’m here today to present the
project at 3265 El Camino Real. As Chair Furth noted this is an architectural review and request for a
Design Enhancement Acceptation in a Variance. The project proposes three residential units and about
280-square feet of commercial space on this site. This is a – as noted this project was previously
reviewed on December 15th of 2016 and on June 1st of 2017. The recommendation before you today is a
recommendation for approval to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The project is
located in an urbanized area of the City. It’s predominately surrounded by other commercial type
developments. To the left of the screen, you’ll see a hotel. It’s a two-story hotel and beyond the hotel is
another three-story sort of mixed-use type building. There’s a single-story restaurant located to the right
of the project and behind the project is a parking lot and parking is also on the other side of the street
along El Camino Real. When this project came before the Board at the June 1st, 2017 meeting there were
some various items that the Board noted that they wanted to see. The first was a material and colors
board, that board is before you today. It’s on the dais for you take a look at. The Board also had
questions about the breezeways. Those breeze ways remain unchanged. There is a breezeway sort of on
the second level and the third level that provides access to the residential units. To two residential units
that are located in the back. It’s sort of individual access there. The driveway width, again that remains
unchanged. It’s about 16-feet at the garage door opening. If this project were strictly a residential project
4.a
Packet Pg. 59
City of Palo Alto Page 3
that driveway width would be acceptable but because it’s a mixed-use project it triggers a need for a
wider driveway. The Transportation Divisions reviewed that and there’s been no comments about the
driveway width. They are fine with the acceptation that’s being requested and the again the reduced
driveway width enables the driveway to essentially remain the same on the site. There was also the
problem at the last hearing of a deck that was over the drip line of the tree. The applicant has removed
that deck. The floor places have also been amended on the second-story – second and third-story of the
front unit along El Camino Real. There’s been a bedroom that’s been removed and sort of this play space
that’s been removed and instead, you have a vaulted ceiling in that unit. It creates a little bit more of a
logical floor plan and then it also reduces the massing of the building along El Camino Real. There were
comments about the size of the commercial retail space and that again remains unchanged. There were
questions about the proximity to the restaurant located to the right of the project. Again, the front of the
project is located along the property line but other portions of the project are located 10-feet or more
from that side property line adjacent to the restaurant to try to buffer that. To try to give some space
and try to buffer that and lastly, the project does provide two entrances. One to the commercial space
and then one to the residential units. This is the site plan. Again, there were also some questions and
some issues regarding the rear deck and sort of this opening and some potential safety questions. The
applicant has proposed to enclose this area with a metal screen so to really separate the driveway and
the entry area from the backyard – from the play space area. As you can see there is a separate
residential entry at the front and there is also an entry to the commercial space at the front. Whoops,
excuse me. This slide here presents the proposed front oblique rendering. The new rendering that you
see is at the top. This is what’s before you and you can see the bottom – you can see the rendering at
the bottom. They’ve really reduced the mass in this area. They’ve pulled this back and lost a bedroom.
They’ve also gone with sort of a metal lattice screen around the stairway just to try to again reduce the
mass adjacent to the parking lot for the hotel. I think really quickly I want to go through some of the
materials that you’ll find here. You’ll find some stone veneer along the front, along the garage door that’s
sort of framing the garage door. You’re going to have a stucco finish along the main front of the building
and then you’re also going to have aluminum (inaudible) screened windows as well. Again, these are
renderings. You’ll see the back of the building on the top left and on the lower right you’re going to see
just a simple front elevation of the building. So again, as noted the entitlements are for a Major
Architectural Review, a Design Enhancement Exception to reduce the driveway width from 20-feet to
about 16-feet and a Variance to the ground floor commercial office space requirement. Staff did prepare
an Environmental Review for this. It was circulated from March 23rd to April 23rd. We haven’t received any
comments to date and the initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration includes the standards
Condition of Approval or excuse me, standard mitigation measures related to items regarding
construction noise, cultural resources and biology. So, based on this information the recommendation
before the Architectural Review Board is to consider a motion or to consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and recommend approval to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Thank
you and I’m available for any questions that the Board may have.
Chair Furth: Any questions of Staff before we hear from the applicant?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes.
Board Member Lew: I just – oh, go ahead Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: Sorry Alex. I’m supposed to know the answer to this but why is the Mitigated
Declaration or the whole EIR thing required to begin with?
Mr. Petersen: This project is actually located in the plumb area of the City. There’s groundwater intrusion
and so we wanted to make sure that we documented that plumb area and then disclosed that to the
public with the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Chair Furth: You also had noted possible concerns about noise and biological resources.
4.a
Packet Pg. 60
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Mr. Petersen: That is correct, yes.
Chair Furth: That probably could have handled them with standards conditions. Thanks. Alex.
Board Member Lew: Thank you, Adam. You’ve included the Variance Findings in the ARB packet or just a
narrative about that and I think in the past I’m understanding that was like the purview of the Planning
Director and not the ARB. I just wanted to – if you want a – if you’re looking for comments from the
Board about that?
Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: Thank you Board Member. We – that’s correct. It is the
Director’s purview but what we like to do when there’s a Variance with an ARB application, we like to
daylight that so the public has a chance to at least see our thinking. Certainly, if the Board has comments
or perspectives we certainly welcome those comments.
Board Member Lew: Then my second question or comment is in the Findings I think you used – well it’s
on numerous – it’s all throughout the Packet but you use the word Heritage tree in reference to the oak
tree. I think my comment is my understanding is that I think we in Palo Alto we use the word protected
or regulated. Heritage tree means something that the Council has designated for like a cultural or a
historical artifact or object. That’s all that I have, thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you so shall we hear from the applicant? You have 10-minutes.
Mr. Lait: I’m sorry if I missed this but were there any disclosures to report?
Chair Furth: Oh, first of all, has anybody visited the site? You can just…
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I visited the site Tuesday morning.
Chair Furth: I visited the site on several occasions.
Board Member Gooyer: So, did I.
Board Member Lew: I’ve visited the site on previous occasions not recently.
Chair Furth: It hasn’t changed a lot as far as I can tell. Does anybody have any conversations they’d like
to disclose or need to disclose? Alright, we’ll proceed, you have 10-minutes.
Mr. Bob Iwersen: Good morning members of the Architectural Review Board and thank you for hearing
our project at 3265 El Camino. I am Bob Iwersen with Hunt Hale Jones Architects and I represent the
(inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Furth: I’m sorry to interrupt your flow but for the transcriber could you spell your name? You’ll be
glad you did.
Mr. Iwersen: I-w-e-r-s-e-n where ever – whoever the transcriber is.
Chair Furth: Great thanks.
Mr. Iwersen: Alright thank you. We’ve had several formal and informal review between the Planning
Department and yourselves. I think hopefully we’ve reached a point where we have something that the
City of Palo Alto can be – of which they can be proud. So, with that real quick – let’s see if I can – is that
right? Ok. To go back to the site and how I see the site and some of the challenges yet I think something
that we can – we turned into benefits especially it’s not a Heritage oak but what’s the term? I guess it’s
the – and so but the fact that it’s bounded on three sides. We had to keep a street tree and maintain the
curb cut which we apparently are going to be doing at this point. We will diminish that a little bit since
4.a
Packet Pg. 61
City of Palo Alto Page 5
part of the curb cut goes onto the adjacent property line and that it’s part of the Cal/Ventura corridor.
Then the site context is mixed and it mixed with what the desire of the future is with what it presently is
and so those for me are some of the major elements of the site. From our previous reviews, if you can
see the slides up here, our initial scheme when we came into the Planning Department and that’s where
we discovered the street tree needed to be kept. The next view was where we realized that we did not
quite meet the fifty percent build to line and so we came up with this project. Then we discovered the
Heritage oak with another version but we didn’t quite meet the fifty percent build and then we were a
little bit too tall at El Camino and we tried to pull everything away from the Heritage oak. Then it was the
wrong character and then it was too massive and so we ended up -- in a way to accommodate all these
issues we ended up with this latest project you saw which had some peculiarities. Then when it went
through planning again there was some planning comment where we were miss calculating the
residential portion a little throughout the whole project. So, we had to diminish a little bit of the
residential and that included, which I think ended up being quite a nice solution, is enclosing the
stairwell. We did actually on the east property line pull back a little bit so that there is some opportunity
for openings on the east property line, not all of it. Then also we had to accommodate through
engineering the back-flow preventers and the gas meters which we had thought we had resolved earlier
but they needed to be brought all the way to the front. So, there’s a lot of challenge at the front of the
building trying to come in and provide all the services as well as an entrance. So then where your
concerns which we hope we addressed and one of them was the bow window at the front. We brought
that to the same character as all the other windows using the same window. It’s an aluminum clad
window, Anderson window, that does meet our ETC values for the front. I think the nice part of that is
when you get to the interior it will have a wood finish so it brings a more residential feel to the interior of
the unit. The other item that we have addressed is the residential entry. That was deemed a little too
subtle or a little to diminished along that side and so we just wanted to enhance it a little more. Then we
also had the issue of this opening and the turnaround space that we thought we needed for the cars that
went out towards that nice little oasis in the rear. We found out from transportation that we had enough
backup space so we were able to screen that off and secure it which was another concern. So, we have a
man door from there but it will be secured and we still want to screen it though to allow for airflow into
the garage. Then I want to address the curb cut issue as well or the louver as well. That was one
concern that was brought up as far as whether or not it met the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. I
think in recent years that has proven to be something that’s made a little bit of a comeback. You can see
it on some of Stanley Saitowitz’s buildings such as 8 Octavia and Octavia Market on Harrison Street and
several other buildings. I think it can be quite an elegant for that window which provides light but you
still want some privacy from El Camino. I think it’s a dynamic part of the front elevation as well. So here
are our solutions to these issues and you can see the little more opening of that corner. Especially with
the stairwell becoming sort of a latticework and a detailed of layering of metal work around the stair.
Then the enclosure of the rear and really isolating that little oasis in the rear of the building. Then the
entrance to the units to the residential portion has come out a little offering a little bit of shelter for
people as well as for the mailman who comes in and drops off the mail. So, -- and packages. That we
hope is an improvement to the project. Finally, I would like to discuss the curb cut which is actually not
16-feet. It’s 16-feet at the garage door, it’s 18-feet for the drive isle itself. While it is a 20-feet
requirement that kind of points towards a larger project which has a lot more commercial and a lot more
residential aspect to it in the mixed-use aspect. We’re only servicing seven cars and it seems like a
reasonable solution to cut back to 18-feet from 20 and then we do have a standard 16-foot garage
access door. Then the other comments that came up where our detailing issues and I brought a more
robust board if you care to pass this around (inaudible). (Inaudible) from a siding standpoint we will be –
the base of the building on El Camino will be a limestone finish with a granite cap. A black granite water
table which will, in a very traditional way, extend beyond the limestone base. Then the remaining of the
El Camino façade will be stucco and we feel this is a durable material, a durable aspect for El Camino and
it will be scored in a more contemporary way as far as the stucco itself. So, we feel that’s an appropriate
material as we – in front of El Camino and then we – as we step back we get to a more residential
application with the premier version of Hardy. Then, however to make it as sort of this tension between
urban and residential, I want to penalize it with these easy trims which that’s not really a good example
of easy trim there. It comes in a much larger – the metal reveal joints but you can do corners and you
can horizontal and vertical that will actually meet the depth of that – of a staggered lap that we would be
4.a
Packet Pg. 62
City of Palo Alto Page 6
having for the siding. Then we would be – to add privacy around the decks we’d be using a (inaudible)
screening metal which we think is quite elegant and nice and that will be through the project. That will be
what we’re using at the rear of the – at the screening for the garage from the rear yard. Then – whoops
I guess I kind of went ahead of my screen here. So, this is kind of an idea of or an imagery of what we’d
be – of how we see the screening at the stairs. Then there’s the other metals along the line, the copings,
the – and then the cladding of the windows and such that we feel are appropriate for the urban yet
residential aspect of the project. Thank you very much and I’ll be willing to answer any questions.
Chair Furth: Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. To save me diving through the plans the opening on El Camino for the garage
entrance, the opening through the stone wall. What part is 16-feet and what part is 18-feet?
(inaudible)(crosstalk)
Mr. Iwersen: The 16-feet is just the garage door itself and then there’s – it’s a – the curb cut itself is
going to be 18-feet and then there’s a little bit of an area over there for staging of the – when you bring
out your garbage for the garbage trucks to pick up. That will encroach a little bit on the 18-feet but – so
it’s actually 20 – let’s see, I have to take a look at the drawings. It’s actually 20-feet wide on the – I think
it’s 20-feet for the garage opening or for the actual opening.
Vice Chair Baltay: As I’m looking at your elevation at the El Camino level, what’s the width stone to stone
on that portal opening?
Mr. Iwersen: Stone to stone is 22-feet.
Vice Chair Baltay: 22-feet and the reason it’s not symmetric is why?
Mr. Iwersen: Well partially – let's go back and take a look at the front elevation here. Whoops. We could
bring it down I guess a little bit more, I think that’s a reasonable request. The – oh the vision triangle.
That’s why we – the vision triangle for when you exit out. Right, that’s why we’re there.
Vice Chair Baltay: So, through the Chair could I ask Staff to example what the vision triangle thing is.
Chair Furth: Yes.
Mr. Petersen: So, the one comment and the one issue that came up from the Transportation Department
is that because you are exiting the site and going onto El Camino Real. They do need a clear vision
triangle and it’s basically – I’m trying to (inaudible). It’s basically you need to be able to look beyond a
wall and see diagonally so that’s why that corner is pulled – it's recessed or it’s not as wide.
Vice Chair Baltay: So that’s for safety for (inaudible)(crosstalk)…
Mr. Petersen: Correct, it’s for safety purposes.
Vice Chair Baltay: …vehicles approaching from El Camino.
Mr. Petersen: Right so it’s for safety purposes for vehicles along El Camino, it’s for pedestrians and
cyclists who are on the sidewalk. It’s for all safety purposes.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you for that question.
Chair Furth: Any other questions of the application? Osma.
Board Member Thompson: The material for the louver in the front is that on the material board?
4.a
Packet Pg. 63
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Mr. Iwersen: It is on the material box. It will be an aluminum louver but it will be painted so with a
powder coated finish.
Board Member Thompson: Could you point it out on the (inaudible)? I kind of missed it.
Chair Furth: Any other questions? Does any member of the public wish to comment on this proposal?
Hearing none I’ll close this part of the hearing. Any further comments from Staff before we deliberate?
Alright, start on the left, Board Member Gooyer. Comments?
Board Member Gooyer: Well I must admit it’s – this project has had a great improvement since the first
couple of times we’ve seen it. It’s come a long way. The problem that I see with it, it’s just too big for
where it needs to go. I mean there are some sites that are just tough to develop and this is one of those.
I’m well aware of that. The problem is I mean we’re being presented here by a mixed-use project which
has about 4,500-square feet of residential and the commercial end is a one car garage so to me that’s
not mixed-use. That’s putting a one car garage little I don’t know what you’d put in there for a walk by
commercial space between two areas that aren’t commercial so you’d literally have to find it. I don’t see
that would even be a viable commercial space. Like I said it’s come a long way but I just can’t see that –
it doesn’t work for me. I can’t see the justification of this project. I mean it’s a shame that not all sites
are readily developable but to me, this is one of those that isn’t.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex.
Board Member Lew: Well I can recommend approval of your project. I think your project has changed
over the years far more than any of the other projects that we’ve seen. I think that it goes back – I think
ties back to what Robert just said, it’s a very difficult site, it’s narrow, you have suburban parking
requirements or mixed-use requirements and you have that – and the oak tree. It’s a challenge and
we’ve seen other – the Board has seen other difficult sites on an El Camino and they’ve required a lot of
creativity to get them to work. I think the – in the spirit of the code I think the hardest thing on my end
is the minimal – the very small commercial space but I’m willing to still recommend approval of the
project. I can recommend that the DEE as well for the narrower driveway. I think you’ve made a lot of
progress on the building. I think that the front façade is – you’ve provided a lot of depth and a lot of
high-quality materials in there and a lot of detailing. The – I think also, in particular, the residential
entrance is way better than it was previously and so I can recommend approval. I did want to point out a
couple little thing. One is in the Conditions of Approval I think the Staff has recommended there’s a
Condition of Approval for no planting within 10-feet of the oak tree trunk. That’s pretty standard in Palo
Alto as well as I think a lot of California Native Plants Society recommendations. They don’t want any
planting near the trunk of the tree and you’re showing planting near the trunk.
Mr. Iwersen: Oh, we are? Ok.
Board Member Lew: Near the trunk and we do that because – the recommendation is because we don’t
really want to add any irrigation close to the trunk where it will cause root rot. And then also on – for
Staff under – on Page 21 of our Packet, this is the ARB Findings. There’s a reference to Oxford Avenue
which I believe is for another project so maybe we could edit that and make it – I don’t know exactly
how to edit it but I think something is not quite right there. That’s all.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. I can support this project. I find it to be – let me start it’s a great
presentation, it really is. It’s really well put together. I can understand what’s going on and the material
board you just showed us especially is wonderful and how well it shows what’s going on. I can commend
to Staff that it’s the kind of thing you should show another applicant because it really clearly explains to
us what they are thinking. What I find I’m thinking is that it’s a very refine details and very high-quality
materials and it shows in the plans, it shows in the material board and it will show in the finished project.
I think the design also has come an awful long way. Robert is correct, it’s a very challenging site. It’s
4.a
Packet Pg. 64
City of Palo Alto Page 8
challenging because of the Zoning Ordinances and the tree and their location and I think you’ve done a
good job getting three houses in there. That’s what the City needs and wants and I, of course, agree that
it’s ridiculous to have a 200-square foot commercial facility there but that’s the politics that be. That’s the
way the code is and I think you’ll make some use out of it. I think you’ve also done a good job respecting
the neighbors the way its set back from the motel to the left is well done. I think it will be a good
neighbor that way. I think to the right you didn’t show the large palm tree which sets off that part of the
façade as you’re coming up El Camino. I think again the tree and the building will complement each other
very nicely so it’s a good architectural touch. I also find it refreshing to see you’re rethinking the trash
and the bicycle and the utility, all those details that have to be dealt with and they’ve been dealt with on
this application. Many times, what we see is that’s not dealt with. It’s pushed off till later and it affects
the design. It’s wonderful, it’s great that you’ve tackled those issues, you’ve resolved them; you’ve put
them on paper. That said I wonder if there’s a way to get that masonry poured entrance off El Camino to
be symmetric. It bugs me that it’s wider on one side than the other and if that is being cut off for a vision
triangle it’s certainly not the direction traffic is coming from so it doesn’t make sense from an automobile
safety point of view. It seems to me you could put some sort of a buzzer or a warning system with the
door which is recess back there. There must be some other way to solve this to allow that symmetric
façade improvement so if there’s a way to get that done I’d really encourage Staff to help them navigate
through the transportation logistics. It would really make a difference on the façade composition and I
mean it’s the garbage cans you’re showing there. It really is better to shield them off. I’ve also noticed
that there’s a monument sign for the motel which is right on the property line there which will need to be
moved. I understand that will have to be a separate application from the motel property owner etc. but I
would like for the Architecture Board to at least be able to say that if it were a similar monument sign,
just pushed further along the street and have the parking slightly reconfigured that’s certainly very
acceptable. I’d just hate to see another round of applications for the motel owner and a lot of paperwork
for something that has to be changed but it’s the one thing where you didn’t show what’s going to
happen on that sign and I wish that were dealt with. Lastly, I read through the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and it’s fine, it’s all pretty straightforward. I just find it crazy that Item 4-D references bird’s
nests in the oak tree in the back and for some reason, this application is being required to either not
build during bird nesting season or to provide an on-going arborist or bird watcher to make sure that the
bird nests aren’t hurt. While I’m all for helping birds, it seems, to me, an unfair requirement. Every other
residential development in town near a tree is not required to hire a bird watcher to protect the nests and
it just doesn’t seem fair to me to have to develop that level of mitigation. It’s fine if this is a 100-unit
apartment building. If this is a large office building. If the tree is a central important thing but these guys
have been pushed around by this tree all the past couple of years and this just seems to add insult to
injury. So, I would support if the Staff can find a way or if we can find a way to just remove that
requirement. Again, it’s Item 4-D in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Thank you.
Chair Furth: I guess we’re to me or Osma, have you spoken? Osma.
Board Member Thompson: Hi there. Yes, this is one of my first time looking at this project. I did get a
chance to look over the meeting minutes from the June 1st meeting and I’ve passed by the site a lot of
times in the past. Unfortunately, didn’t get to visit in the last two weeks. I really like the concept in
general of the breezeway in the back. That’s really exciting. I feel like the façade still – it’s close but it’s
not there for me right now. In particular, I take a big issue with the louver screen on the – you know that
long louver screen on the side. It’s still – I understand the comments from the last meeting that it
become more proportional which I can see that you’ve tried to do but it still feels like a wall in general. It
seems like that part of the façade seems ignored in the way that it's being rendered and even in the
material choice. It’s true I’ve seen some of Saitowitz’s stuff that you were referring to but I don’t know
that this is performing in that way. In that sense it’s a huge – still, it’s a big sore thumb. I think there’s
really some exciting ways to deal with that given that you have a stair in plan. There are really exciting
opportunities for filtered light that aren’t the solution that I think could contribute to the project and to
the street. In that sense, I think that’s a big item for me. I do appreciate the presentation with the
material board. It is very helpful but at the same time, I’m not a fan of the limestone choice. It’s quite
dark and I don’t know that’s its as high quality as it could be. I agree with my Board Member – Board
Member Baltay about the garage symmetry. If there’s a way to make it more symmetric in some way,
4.a
Packet Pg. 65
City of Palo Alto Page 9
maybe there’s – I was just looking at it in the plan. There are some potential things that I think could be
done to sort of create a little bit more balance there. Let’s see what else. The material for the stair
enclosure – the image that you show as the president, even that’s a very strong, heavy grid with a heavy
gauged metal. It’s a little imposing. It’s sort of hard to see why it would be nice to go up a stair. Now
that we can see it from the front it might be nice if there’s a concept in there about including greenery
and that might make it a bit nicer but even that material I’m not a huge fan of. Let’s see, the screen in
which you’re screening the garage, I didn’t see a material on there for that. The material between…
Mr. Iwersen: It’s the (inaudible) material. It’s a fairly large sample.
Board Member Thompson: Is that the…
Mr. Iwersen: Yeah.
Board Member Thompson: Ok. That – I actually really like that one. I think there’s something there in
terms of the filtered light and maybe that’s a concept that you can kind of bring into these other areas
that call for filtered light. That kind of does it in a little bit more of an exciting way than these other kinds
of ways that seem a little bit more oppressive. Yes, and in terms of the commercial area, you know I
understand that it’s small. I still think a little bit more – it seems like it’s sort of is recessed in the back
and that’s a choice to bring more of the façade in the front. As – because the façade needs a lot of work
I wonder if there’s more that could be done to bring more prominence to the commercial area to actually
make it usable because you have it and it needs to get used. So, if there’s a way to detail it a little
differently such that its sort of is a different thing I think that could benefit the project. As it stands I
think it still needs a bit of work and I would like to see it again.
Chair Furth: Well I’m prepared to support the project as submitted. It is a pleasure to see how responsive
the applicant and their architect has been in thinking about how to modify their earlier proposals. It is a
complicated site. It is a set of uses that are highly desired by our City as evidenced by the City Council
and our new Comprehensive Plan which we all now have copies of to read from cover to cover before the
next meeting or at least to get the policies. I actually like the way this looks and more to the point
perhaps I think you’ve created attractive places to live. I was looking at a lot of projects in the City this
week that have been forced to build around oak trees and, in every case, there are losses of building
space. In every case, there are enormous enhancements of the quality of that building space – that build
space once people live there or work there. So, I actually am in support of the policy and in it’s
supportive your response to it. I think building residential on El Camino presents a huge problem in terms
of noise. I think that – it was interesting to read the noise study part of the Negative – Mitigated
Negative Declaration. I think that – I’m always curious as to what’s going to happen on those balconies
but living on a somewhat heavily traveled but much smaller street myself I do notice that there’s a
psychological benefit to having that additional construction outside my big windows. It gives an additional
sense of privacy and buffering and I think that you’ve managed to provide outdoor spaces that are going
to be quite sheltered from the noise. I’ve been thinking a lot about the Variance and the zoning
constraints within which you and we are working. I actually like the recessed commercial entry. I was
buttonholed on the way over here this morning when I was walking to City Hall by somebody who
wanted to tell me how much we hated all of our development going to the sidewalk and how much he
preferred recessed spaces. I think having this space to step off the sidewalk before you enter the
commercial space is a good thing. I like this. These certainly are traditional of developing downtown and
this is clearly not downtown but I would disagree with the idea that moving it forward makes it better. I
trekked to Oakland – well drove to Oakland earlier this week to go to somebody’s textile design studio
and her showroom was a heck of a lot smaller than this but I drove all the way over there to be delighted
by the work she does. In fact, I wonder what the chances are of this being essentially a work/live space
for somebody who both lives in the area – lives in the project and uses that as the public –the place to
interact with clients. So, it’s a tiny office or retail space for somebody, these are three units in an
enormous housing deficit but I can make the findings for approval. I’m not particularly bothered by the
asymmetry but I – and I’m very aware of the problem that happens when you come out of a driveway
and people on bicycles or on foot with headphones come charging by without any regard for their own
4.a
Packet Pg. 66
City of Palo Alto Page 10
safety. So, I would not be in favor of modifying that unless the Transportation Department felt that it was
quite safe. That’s it for me. Does anybody care to make a motion? Oh, and with respect to the bird’s
nest, I’m not going to try to deal with our standard CEQA requirements today but I think the comments
are worth noting.
Board Member Thompson: With regard to the bird mitigation I disagree. I think it’s important to protect
in place with nests.
Vice Chair Baltay: I’d like to push this along but I wonder if I could ask Osma, are there changes to the
façade that could earn your support? What if we pushed back on the louvered grill or something like
that?
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, maybe. I think – yeah if there was a way to conceptually show how that
would change I think potentially – I wasn’t prepared to support this project coming in because of how
much the façade needs work. In terms of just concept, I mean maybe. I don’t know. I think it needs
some high concept of filtered light to actually show justification for creating such a flat façade. Especially
when there’s so many more exciting things. There’s a landing there, there could be other type of
fenestration or -- and such. You know there’s more opportunities there.
Vice Chair Baltay: When I look at the floor plan this is a window in front of stair next to the kitchen and
over a two-story space so the notion of it protecting privacy I don’t really by. I think it’s an architectural
element that the architect seems to want. Generally, I want to give the architect that sort of latitude.
They are the architect and I don’t want to be designing from here but it’s better if we can earn your
support to approve this. So, I’m wondering if, for example, we suggested that that be redesigned and
come back on a subcommittee. Do you think that would work for you?
Board Member Thompson: I think I’d want to see that and I’d want to see the stair enclosure again.
Vice Chair Baltay: What’s – what would we want to do with the stair enclosure?
Board Member Thompson: It’s heavy and oppressive. It needs – its kind of a – I don’t know. It’s not – I
don’t know that it’s in conformance with the El Camino street frontage.
Board Member Lew: Can you clarify? You’re talking about the stair inside that unit at the corner or the
exterior stair with the metal mesh?
Board Member Thompson: The exterior stair with the metal mesh.
Board Member Lew: I would be fine if those two elements came back to subcommittee and I would – I
think the Board would need to be clearer – as a majority the Board would need to be clearer. Give clearer
direction as to what we’re looking for in those.
Chair Furth: I certainly agree with that. I mean we appear to have three votes to move the project
ahead. It’s always good to get more consensus if we can but I would be reluctant to refer this to
subcommittee unless we were quite clear what we are looking for. Since I’m not looking for anything I
leave it to the three of you to figure that out if you can.
MOTION
Vice Chair Baltay: Let me make a motion and Osma you should feel free to second it or I mean to amend
it with changes on things you wish. I recommend --- I move that we recommend to the Director to
approve this project as submitted with the condition that the garage portal be made symmetric by
widening the left-hand piece so I’m looking for a second on that motion.
4.a
Packet Pg. 67
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Chair Furth: I’m not going to second it because -- I realize this is a non-second – because I’m not in favor
of widening it unless the traffic – transportation experts feel that it’s safe.
Vice Chair Baltay: Far enough, let me rephrase that. I recommend that we – I move that we recommend
approval the Director of Planning with the request that the garage portal be widened on the left-hand
side to be symmetric if the applicant can prove that the vehicular safety is satisfactory to the
Transportation Department with some other mechanism. Perhaps a timer or I mean a beeper or
something but it has to be safe by City Standards of course.
Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that.
Chair Furth: Do you want a friendly amendment about…
Board Member Thompson: Yes.
Chair Furth: … referral to…
Board Member Thompson: So perhaps – so I’d like to make a friendly amendment…
Chair Furth: Start there.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
Board Member Thompson: … to see this project again in subcommittee with regard to further
development on the louver side of the project that further creates more conformance with El Camino in
terms of openings and filtered light and further creates a different sense of scale than -- a smaller sense
of scale, than what it’s creating right now. In addition to that louver area, the mesh around the stair I
would also like to come back to subcommittee for also a less oppressive material and construction.
Vice Chair Baltay: If you don’t mind let me clarify that. You’re asking that the large louvered cover over
the window on the right-hand side of the façade be redesigned to meet the goals that you just
mentioned or the whole façade? I can support redoing the louvered window and stair but I want to be
clear that that’s what we’re asking them to reduce.
Board Member Thompson: Yes.
Vice Chair Baltay: Not everything else.
Board Member Thompson: Just those two areas.
Vice Chair Baltay: I can accept that amendment.
Chair Furth: Discussion.
Board Member Lew: (crosstalk) Robert needs to…
Chair Furth: (inaudible)
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I’m fine.
Chair Furth: So, I still don’t understand what – I understand – you’re very clear as to the areas you want
to address. You want this large louvered window to the right of the façade and the left exterior stairwell
screening. I don’t understand what it means to make this more in conformance with the El Camino Real.
I do understand about filtered light and more – so doe this mean at night, for example, you’d see light
through it differently than in the day? I’m not – I understand the filtered light part. That’s about it.
4.a
Packet Pg. 68
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Board Member Lew: So, do you know – so in the El Camino Design Guidelines there’s a picture of the I
think it’s the Wells Fargo Bank on El Camino and California. It has screens covering all of the windows.
Chair Furth: Right, it does.
Board Member Lew: That was a popular thing in the – like Edward Earl Stone, late 50s/60s and I think
the guidelines say they don’t like it because it is blocking views and transparency and making things more
interesting. I mean they're trying to screen something and…
Chair Furth: Yeah because you’re trying to hide something and that’s bad.
Board Member Lew: Right and we’re trying to have it more open and interesting and visually interesting.
Board Member Thompson: I think also the bigger thing in addition to that is that it’s a big wall of blank
really right now on that side which is a problem. So, if there could be a way to break that scale and
maybe create some more visual interest I think that would be what we would need.
Chair Furth: Part of my problem is this is a very skinny site and you charge by on El Camino Real this is
just a flash so I don’t see it as a big blank wall but that’s one person’s opinion.
Board Member Lew: I think is it the sidewall that’s blank because it’s on the property line but it’s not
long. It’s not going down the full length of the property line. It’s just a relatively short wall.
Vice Chair Baltay: Don’t forget there’s a nice palm tree just to the right of this building which really
compliments the sidewall beautifully and I think the whole façade actually. It has the same vertical sense
about the louver.
Chair Furth: Then the direction to make the stairwell less oppressive. How would we translate that into
perhaps clearer language? Maybe it's all perfectly clear to the applicant.
Mr. Iwersen: I’ll take – I can understand what Osma’s getting at and I’ll work it – designing it in a more
careful and delicate way.
Board Member Thompson: Ok.
Chair Furth: Alright. Are we ready to vote or does – ok. There is a motion, I forgot to say this last time,
made by Board Member Baltay – Commission – Vice Chair Baltay. I can never get the last names right.
Seconded by Board Member Gooyer to approve the project as submitted. There was a friendly
amendment which added that this project should come back to a subcommittee for further work on two
items. The louvered window screen to the right – on the right portion of the façade to provide a better
opening and filtered light more consistent with the El Camino Real Design goals and a reworking of the
mesh around the stairwell to make it less oppressive. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Board Member Gooyer: Nay.
Chair Furth: It passes 4 to 1. Board Member Gooyer dissenting. Would you care to amplify on your
dissent?
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH BOARD MEMBER GOOYER OPPOSING.
Board Member Gooyer: I don’t know the – it’s like I said, you’ve come a long way on this but there are
just too many things that. It’s one of these things if you take one or two items at a time then it’s really
not the big of deal but there are like six or seven things that I don’t really like about this. I think it’s just
4.a
Packet Pg. 69
City of Palo Alto Page 13
trying to put too much in spot. It’s tough to do but that doesn’t mean – and also it just seems like an
impractical place to put three residences.
Chair Furth: Alright, thank you.
Mr. Iwersen: Thank you very much Board Members.
Chair Furth: We’ll give Staff a minute to set up before our next item which is 620 Emerson Street.
[The Board took a short break]
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 620 Emerson Street (17PLN-00331):
Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow
Demolition of an Existing Single Story Building and Construct a New Two Story 4,256 Square Foot
Commercial Building for the Expansion of Nobu Restaurant. The Project Includes Replacement of
Three On-Site Parking Spaces with Five In-Lieu Spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment
District. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P)
(Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at
samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Furth: Alright our next item is a public hearing, it’s quasi-judicial concerning 620 Emerson Street. A
request for a Minor Architectural Review to allow demolition of existing single-story building and
construction of a new two-story building of about 4,250-square feet to permit the expansion of a Nobu
restaurant and the replacement of three on-site parking space with five in lieu spaces within the
Downtown Parking Assessment District. This project has been found to be exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act. May we have the Staff report, please? Oh sorry, has anybody – first of all, we
should report on our visits to the site and conversations that we may have had about this project. Osma.
Board Member Thompson: I don’t have anything to disclose.
Chair Furth: Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I’ve visited the site numerous times and I also has a telephone conversation with
community member Elizabeth Wong who relayed to me that she has great concerns about the City
allowing the in-lieu parking exception to be made for this project. It wasn’t entirely clear in my
conversation but she said she had some sort of traffic report that proved her position that parking could
be accomplished on this site. I just thought it was important that everybody here – at least that was my
conversation with Elizabeth Wong that she claims that the case. Thank you.
Chair Furth: I have visited the site repeatedly both on foot and by car.
Board Member Lew: I have no disclosures.
Board Member Gooyer: Just maybe reiterate that what needs to happen. I mean I assume visiting the
site was just part of the normal routine of what we need to do. I didn’t – this is the first time I’ve heard
that we really need to indicate that we’ve visited the site. I figured that was given.
Chair Furth: Well it often is. The only reason for disclosing that is if something has changed since we
visited.
Board Member Gooyer: I mean ok yes, I visited the site but you can pretty much assume – I mean I’ve
done that to all the projects but it…
Chair Furth: We’ll assume that you have unless you tell us otherwise.
4.a
Packet Pg. 70
23 July, 2019
ARB Subcommittee
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA
Re: 3265 El Camino Real
15PLN-00312
Palo Alto, CA
To Whom It May Concern,
Per the conditions of approval, we are submitting documents for the redesign of the
window at the El Camino façade and the more detailed design for the stair system.
Please find attached the following items for the conditions of approval request
1. 2-story Window at El Camino Real Elevation
a. (3) Window Configuration Options
b. (2) Outline Frame Options
i. Shaped
ii. Square
2. (2) Stair Design options
a. Option 1
i. This option is a combination of typical railing designs at landings and
a flowing rhythm of 1x1 metal bars at the center stair run.
ii. The continuous flowing pattern
1. Recalls the siding pattern
2. Provides proper guardrail requirements
3. Acts as a climbing wall for planting per the landscape
drawings
4. Provides a visual interest through the feeling of movement
that supports the concept of a stair system
b. Option 2
1. Flowing rhythm metal Bar option at entire system
a. The consistency simplifies an already multi-faceted
building and includes some of the advantages from
above
Sincerely,
Bob Iwersen
Architect at HHJA
4.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment C
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the
public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the
5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll to find “3265 El Camino Real” and click the address link
3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and
other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3867&targetID=319
4.c
Packet Pg. 72