HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-17 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: October 17, 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. 2342 Yale Street [18PLN-00233]:
Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural
Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Residential Units and Construction of
a New Two-Story Duplex Building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the
Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With
Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RMD (NP). For More
Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley, AICP at efoley@m-group.us
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3585 El Camino Real [17PLN-00305]:
Consideration on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to
Allow the Demolition of an Existing Structure and Construction of a New Three-Story
Mixed-Use Building. A Consideration of a Variance to the Parking Lot Perimeter
Landscaping Requirement. Environmental Assessment: Pending Mitigated Negative
Declaration in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Zoning District: CN. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah
Sing, AICP 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
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 5, 2019.
Subcommittee Items
5. 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
6. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00114]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved
Project for L'Occitane in Building C at the Stanford Shopping Center That was
Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related Facade Plaster Sample,
Relocation of Facade Camera, Column/Circular Planting Box Details, and Storefront
Mullion Color. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301.
Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact
the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org.
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 Peter Baltay
Vice Chair Osma Thompson
Boardmember David Hirsch
Boardmember Grace Lee
Boardmember Alex Lew
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
& Development Services 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 # 10764)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 10/17/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
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 & Development Services 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
gular
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 Cancelled
10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Lee
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
1/17 –
Furth/Lew
2/7 – Baltay/Lew 3/21 – Baltay/
Thompson
4/4 – Baltay/
Thompson
4/18 – Lew/
Hirsch
6/6 – Furth/
Baltay
July August September October November December
7/18 –
Baltay/Lew
8/1 -
Baltay/Lew
10/17 –
Baltay/
Thompson
*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
November 7, 2019
• 180 El Camino Real: Macy’s Men Redevelopment (3rd Formal)
• Discuss Future Topics for Joint Meeting with Council
1.b
Packet Pg. 7
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10654)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/17/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 2342 Yale Street: Duplex Project (2nd Formal)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2342 Yale Street [18PLN-
00233]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval
of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of
Two Existing Residential Units and Construction of a New Two-
Story Duplex Building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt
From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New
Construction). Zoning District: RMD (NP). For More
Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley, AICP at
efoley@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. The staff report dated February 21,
2019 includes extensive background information, project analysis, and evaluation to city codes
and policies; that report is available online: bit.ly/2lWNENG.
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 & Development Services Department Page 2
On February 21, 2019 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is
available online: bit.ly/2kfme5c. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are
summarized in the following table:
ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response
Parking and Circulation do not have
enough space to be functional,
Hollywood strips may not be feasible.
• Parking has been redesigned to include a
shared garage between the two units, with the
third parking space at the end of the driveway.
Garage placement allows for sufficient back-
up/turn-around space. See sheet A-1 and Car
Maneuvering Exhibit.
• The driveway is now permeable pavers.
• The side setback remains 14 feet, however the
width of the driveway was increased
approximately two feet and less of the building
is at the 14 foot (ft) setback line.
Materials do not fit neighborhood
character.
Materials have been revised from plaster to
include siding and fiberglass windows. The overall
design is more traditional/contemporary.
Size of units are too large for site, with
four bedrooms, an office, and a
basement family room.
Basements have been removed from the project
scope. Each unit has three bedrooms, similar to the
previously proposed above-ground floorplan.
Entries are not well defined,
particularly side entrance to rear unit.
A front porch has been added to the front unit,
with a trellis. Roof overhangs have been extended
over both side entries.
Landscaping does not meet Finding 5. Significant privacy screening is required, which
makes it difficult to use California native plants.
See Analysis section for more discussion.
Interior balconies are not pleasant
because of walls.
Interior balconies have been removed. The open
space requirement is met with ground-level
porches, one street facing balcony, and one rear
facing balcony (allowing for reduced privacy
screening).
Analysis1
Overall, the project plans address the prior ARB comments and are significantly improved.
Proposed Revisions
1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony
may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action
from the recommendation in this report.
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
Incorporating the garage into the building allows for better circulation. There is now sufficient
back-up space out of the garage. That area also acts as the turn-around for the third uncovered
parking space. Removing the basement also improved circulation because there are no longer
lightwells protruding around the building, such as in the side-yard setback. This improved the
access to the bike lockers, which are now behind the garage in the side setback. This ensures
the project better conforms with Finding #4.
To be more consistent with Finding #3, the materials and façade changes improve the building’s
compatibility with the neighborhood character. The neighborhood context is primarily
traditional architecture using wood siding, with at least one Victorian home. The applicant
proposes horizontal wood siding on the second floor and a stucco plaster finish on the first
floor. This helps to visually reduce the massing and makes the project more compliant with the
Individual Review (IR) Guidelines. Staff reviews all two-story residential projects adjacent to
single-family residences for compliance with the IR Guidelines. The trellis also creates a more
residential porch feel, enhances the usability of the front deck, and adds natural wood to the
streetscape.
The private open space is better defined and more useable in the revised plans, which helps the
project to meet Finding #2 and #5. The front unit has a 445 square foot deck with landscaping
around it. The rear unit has a 294 square foot deck and 708 square feet of landscaped space,
including approximately 280 square feet of sedge grass. Each deck also has an approximately 90
square foot trellis/shaded area. The front unit has a 65 square foot street-facing second floor
balcony, and the rear unit has a 72 square foot rear facing balcony. The rear balcony is 20 feet
away from the property line and would be screened by four 24” box strawberry trees, which
will measure at least eight feet tall prior to final inspection/occupancy of the building, per
condition of approval #11. Both balconies will be conditioned to have 5.5 ft privacy walls on the
side-facing planes per the IR Guidelines.
Evaluated and Not Changed
Staff requests the ARB discuss landscaping. Only one tree and several manzanita shrubs are
considered California Native species, whereas AR Finding #5 focuses on use of native species. It
is difficult to include a significant number of native plants for this project, due to IR Guidelines
privacy screening requirements. California native plants typically do not reach a height taller
than 8 ft with dense evergreen foliage. The species proposed for screening include: Strawberry
trees (arbutus marina), Podocarpus, and Carolina laurel cherry. These are low-water plants, and
common choices for privacy screening in residential projects in Palo Alto. Therefore, in order to
provide adequate screening for privacy, Finding #5 is only marginally met.
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 City’s
environmental regulations. Specifically, the project is exempt per CEQA Guideline Section
15303 (New Construction).
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
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 October 4, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on
October 2, 2019, which is 15 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
Emily Foley, AICP, Project Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(408) 340-5642 x111 (650) 329-2575
efoley@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)
• Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)
• Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)
• Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)
• Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX)
2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 11
2.a
Packet Pg. 12
ATTACHMENT B
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
2342 Yale Street
18PLN-00224
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the
Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility
requirements), and any relevant design guides.
The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:
The proposed project as conditioned complies with the zoning code and requires no exceptions
to the development standards. The proposed project is generally consistent with the following
Comprehensive Plan, below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies:
Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to
Comp Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation
for the site is Multiple Family Residential (MF).
The project consists of two attached units.
Land Use and Community Design
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.
The project is an urban infill development
proposal in the urban service area of the city.
Policy L-2.3 As a key component of a diverse,
inclusive community, allow and encourage a
mix of housing types and sizes, integrated into
neighborhoods and designed for greater
affordability, particularly smaller housing
types, such as studios, co-housing, cottages,
clustered housing, accessory dwelling units
and senior housing.
The proposed project is a duplex building that
generally more affordable than a detached
single family home.
Policy L-2.7: Support efforts to retain housing
that is more affordable in existing
neighborhoods, including a range of smaller
housing types.
The proposed project results no change in the
number of units.
2.b
Packet Pg. 13
Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family
buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are
designed and arranged so that each
development has a clear relationship to a
public street.
One of the unit’s front door faces the front
property line to enliven the street, in a similar
fashion as a single-family home. The rear unit
has a covered entryway that faces the
driveway.
Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance,
design review process, design guidelines and
Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high
quality residential and commercial design and
architectural compatibility.
Through the architectural design process, the
applicant has made changes that ensure the
project is well -designed and maintains the
residential streetscape and scale. The project
is also consistent with the City’s Zoning
Ordinance in that it maintains building
setbacks, height, and parking standards.
Policy L-7.2: If a proposed project would
substantially affect the exterior of a potential
historic resource that has not been evaluated
for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it
is eligible for inclusion in State or federal
registers prior to the issuance of a demolition
or alterations permit. Minor exterior
improvements that do not affect the
architectural integrity of potentially historic
buildings shall be exempt from consideration.
Examples of minor improvements may include
repair or replacement of features in kind, or
other changes that do not alter character-
defining features of the building
In August 2018, this property was evaluated
by the City’s qualified historic preservation
consulting firm, Page and Turnbull (P&T). P&T
determined the property is not eligible for
California Register of Historical Resources
(evaluation is in City files). The existing
property two buildings are: (1) 2342 Yale
Street, a two-story, wood-frame, vernacular
cottage constructed ca. 1900-1904 fronted to
Yale Street at the north end of the property;
and (2) 2344 Yale Street, a two-story, multi-
unit, wood-frame, vernacular residential
building constructed in 1938 at the rear (south
end) of the lot.
The project site is not a part of an Area Plan. This project is in the Neighborhood Preservation
Combining District (NP). It is subject to Design Review per PAMC 18.10.140 (b). It is not seeking
any exceptions to Development Standards. This project is subject to the Individual Review
Guidelines as further described below.
Individual Review Guidelines How project adheres or does not adhere to
Guidelines
Guideline 1:
The driveway, garage and house shall be
placed and configured to reinforce the
neighborhood’s existing site patterns (i.e.,
building footprint configuration and location,
setbacks, and yard areas) and the garage and
driveway shall be subordinate to the house,
landscaping and pedestrian entry as seen
The basic home locations and building
configuration allow the project to appear like
a single-family house on the street side, while
using site area efficiently for a two-unit
development. Additionally, the proposed
second floor location allows for adequate
space under the daylight plane.
The proposed driveway location to the right
2.b
Packet Pg. 14
from the street. side of the house matches other houses on
the block.
This guideline calls for landscaped open
space between homes. The landscape plan
shows lines of trees and tall shrubs along
each side lot line, as well as a planting area
along the driveway. The proposed landscape
would be sufficient for long term screening
and includes a variety of planting to provide
landscape interest.
Considering all factors the proposal would be
consistent with guideline one.
Guideline 2:
The scale (perceived size), mass (bulk or
volume) and height (vertical profile) of a new
house or upper story addition shall be
consistent with the existing neighborhood
pattern with special attention to adapting to
the height and massing of adjacent homes.
The proposed front house would have wall
profile offsets at front and right side of the
house to manage mass and scale. The use of
materials, with siding on the upper floor and
hip roof forms also would help manage mass
and scale. Additionally, the height of the
house at 25’-5” to the hip ridge seems
balanced for the neighborhood condition and
adjacent homes. The first floor would be set
close to grade at 1’-4” and the first-floor
plate height of 9’-0” would be low enough so
that the first-floor roof edge would relate to
the adjacent cottage home.
This guideline requires recognition and
response to the scale of homes along the
street and to the scale and massing of homes
to each side of the proposed home. The
proposed design appears to do that fairly
well and generally respond to the concerns of
this guideline.
Guideline 3:
The architectural form and massing shall be
carefully crafted to reduce visual mass, and
distinguish the house’s architectural lines or
style. Roof profiles shall enhance the form,
scale and proportion of primary and
secondary house volumes, while rendering
garage and entry forms subordinate in mass
and scale to principal building forms. Upper
floor additions shall also be balanced and
integrated with the existing building.
The project was not analyzed for this
Guideline.
Guideline 4: The project was not analyzed for this
2.b
Packet Pg. 15
Publicly viewed facades shall be composed
with a clear and cohesive architectural
expression (i.e., the composition and
articulation of walls, fenestrations and eave
lines), and include visual focal point(s) and
the supportive use of materials and detailing.
Entries shall be consistent with the existing
neighborhood pattern and integrated with
the home in composition, scale and design
character. The carport or garage and garage
door design shall be consistent with the
selected architectural style of the home.
Guideline.
Guideline 5:
The size, placement and orientation of
second story windows and decks shall limit
direct sight lines into windows and patios
located at the rear and sides of adjacent
properties in close proximity.
There is considerable existing screening along
the left side lot line on the neighbors’
properties at 610 and 624 California Avenue.
There is also some screening along the rear
lot line at 2345 Williams Street. There would
be little, if any existing landscape for privacy
to the 2346 and 2330 Yale properties. The
proposed landscape will help long-term to
augment privacy screening between
properties where existing landscape exists as
well as adding screening landscape at other
locations.
Windows on the left elevation are minimal
and include obscured glazing on the lower
portions of the windows.
Decks are generally appropriately recessed
into the floor plan, and will have a 5.5 foot
privacy wall as a condition of approval.
The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the
zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A
comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the
administrative record.
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,
2.b
Packet Pg. 16
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 is consistent with Finding #2 because:
The neighborhood area is comprised of various commercial and residential buildings one to two
stories in height. The project proposes to construct a two story duplex building, similar to the
existing use.
The revised circulation allows for an internal sense of order, with the two units separated by
the shared garage. The site also has well-defined open space for each unit.
The proposed project is consistent with the findings to provide high quality materials and
finishes in a neutral color palette. The building height and scale fits with the neighborhood. The
proposed landscaping is primarily for the purpose of privacy, provided by Carolina laurel cherry
shrubs along the left property line, Marina strawberry trees along the rear property line, and
podocarpus and Carolina laurel cherry shrubs along the right property line.
The project also includes ample useable open space areas including ground floor decks and
second floor balconies for each unit, as well as smaller, well-defined, side entry porches.
This project is not subject to context-based design criteria.
Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details
that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
The project is consistent with Finding #3 because:
The project proposes a traditional/contemporary style, which is different from the other
residences in the area, but still a recognizable architectural style. The project uses materials
including wood siding, stucco, fiberglass framed windows, cedar trellises, metal railing on the
balconies, and an asphalt shingle roof. As conditioned, the stucco surfaces will be a smooth
finish texture. The proposed colors are gray tones and are compatible with surrounding color
schemes.
The project is subject to the Individual Review Guidelines. The proposal meets these guidelines
as summarized under Finding #1.
2.b
Packet Pg. 17
Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g.
convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of
open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
The project is consistent with Finding #4 because:
The project includes an attached two car garage and bike lockers as required by the Zoning
Code. The entrance to the front unit is accessible from the street. The rear unit has its front
door facing the side driveway and also has a rear sliding door. Each unit has a ground level deck
as designated open space, in addition to a second floor balcony and side entry porch. The bike
locker is located outside the rear of the garage with access via the garage doors or by walking
around the units.
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 project is consistent with Finding #5 because:
The project provides appropriate landscaping for the residential use. The majority of the
proposed plants are low-water usage and commonly used in residential areas. Shrubs and trees
outline the site for privacy. There is a two feet wide landscape buffer between the driveway
and the property line.
California native plants include one Wester Redbud, planted as an accent tree in the front unit
deck, and 28 Manzanita shrubs throughout the front and rear yards.
Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas
related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning.
The project is consistent with Finding #6 because:
As noted above, the majority of the landscaping is low-water usage. In accordance with the
City’s Green Building Regulations, the project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen
Mandatory + Tier 2. This is demonstrated on the GB sheet in the plan set.
2.b
Packet Pg. 18
ATTACHMENT C
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
2342 Yale Street, 18PLN-00224
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.10 (RMD (NP) DISTRICT)
Regulation Required Existing Proposed
Minimum/Maximum
Site Area, Width and
Depth
5,000-9,999 sf area, 50 foot
width, 100 foot depth
6,250 sf area, 50 foot
width, 125 foot depth
6,250 sf area, 50 foot
width, 125 foot depth
Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet 13 feet 20 feet
Rear Yard
20 feet 10 feet 20 feet
Interior Side Yard
6 feet 7 feet left, 2 feet right 6 feet left, 14 feet right
Max. Building Height 35 feet as measured to the
peak of the roof
unknown 26 feet 3 inches
Side Yard Daylight
Plane
15 feet at interior side lot
line then 45 degree angle
Complies Complies
Rear Yard Daylight
Plane
15 feet at rear setback line
then 45 degree angle
unknown Complies
Max. Site Coverage 40% (2,500 sf)
unknown 35.8% (2,243 sf)
Max. Total Floor Area
Ratio
50% for first 5,000 sf lot
size and 50% for lot size in
excess of 5,000 sf + 200 sf
additional area permitted
for the covering of one
parking space (3,325 sf)
(4)
unknown 53.32% (3,324 sf)
Max. House Size 6,000 sf (5) N/A 3,324
Minimum Usable
Open Space
450 sf per unit N/A 886 and 1072 sf per unit,
respectively
Residential Density,
minimum site area
permitting two units
5,000 sf complies complies
(4) Exemption from Floor Area for Covered Parking Required for Two-Family Uses: In the R-2 and RMD districts, for two-family
uses, floor area limits may be exceeded by a maximum of two hundred square feet, for purposes of providing one required covered
parking space.
(5) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached second dwelling units are included in the
calculation of maximum house size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one detached covered
parking space shall be included in the calculation. This provision applies only to single-family residences, not to duplexes allowed in
the R-2 and RMD districts.
2.c
Packet Pg. 19
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.10.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking)
for Two-Family Residential
Type Required Existing Proposed
Vehicle Parking 1.5 spaces per unit, of
which at least one space
per unit must be covered.
Tandem Parking Allowed,
with one tandem space per
unit, associated directly
with another parking space
for the same unit = 3
spaces
4 spaces (two in
garage, two tandem to
garage spaces)
3 spaces (two in garage,
one uncovered)
Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100%
long term) = 2 spaces
0 spaces 2 spaces (bike lockers)
2.c
Packet Pg. 20
ATTACHMENT D
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
2342 Yale Street
18PLN-00224
________________________________________________________________________
PLANNING DIVISION
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans
entitled, "2342 Yale St Duplex, 2342 Yale St. Palo Alto, CA” stamped as received by the City on
August 6, 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. The Architectural Review (AR) approval letter including all
Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for
building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following
changes:
a. The balconies shall have 5 foot 5 inch privacy walls on sides parallel to side lot lines.
4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for
review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction
phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact
the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is
the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to
the project planner’s attention.
5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the
original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the
construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions
of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made
prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a))
6. REQUIRED PARKING: All residential units in the RMD zone shall be provided with a minimum of
one covered parking space (10 foot by 20 foot interior dimensions) and one additional guest
parking space for the project.
7. 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.
2.d
Packet Pg. 21
8. 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
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.
9. DAYLIGHT PLANE: The daylight plane must clear the point where the wall plane intersects the top
of the roof material.
10. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING/TREES. The following landscaping is required to ensure the project’s
conformance with the City’s IR Guidelines and therefore must remain for the life of the structure.
Required screening trees and shrubs shall be maintained at a height no less than the height
required at the time of planting.
a. The Carolina Laurel Cherry shall be planted and maintained along the east property line as
shown on the Landscape Plan.
b. The Podocarpus Gracillior and Carolina Laurel Cherry trees shall be planted and maintained
along the western property line as shown on the Landscape Plan.
c. The Marina Strawberry trees shall be planted and maintained in the rear yard as shown on
the Landscape Plan.
11. LANDSCAPING. The thirty one (31) proposed Carolina Laurel Cherry trees shown on sheet L1.1
(landscape plan) along the right side lot line (17) and left side lot line (14) must be 24 inch box in
size when planted and measure at least 8 feet tall as shown on the plans prior to Planning Division
signing-off the final inspection for the building permit. The 12 trees proposed on sheet L1.1 shall
also be 24 inch box in size when planted and measure at least 8 feet tall prior to Planning Division
signing-off the final inspection for the building permit.
a. See the Green Building Section for water efficiency requirements.
12. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall hire a certified arborist to ensure the project
conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees.
13. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required for the front street tree.
14. 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.
15. DECONSTRUCTION SURVEY: A Deconstruction Survey is required for demolition permit applications
submitted on or after January 1, 2017. This survey submittal shall include a list of materials that are
salvageable from the project as well as the values of such materials. At this time, the City’s only
approved vendor for this service is The ReUse People. Contact them to schedule this FREE service
by phone (888)588-9490 or e-mail info@thereusepeople.org. More information can be found at
www.TheReusePeople.org. Contact Scott McKay for questions or to be considered as an approved
third-party vendor at scott.mckay@cityofpaloalto.org.
2.d
Packet Pg. 22
16. 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.
17. 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, Emily Foley at
efoley@m-group.us to schedule this inspection.
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT:
22. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and
Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no
closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division
contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”.
23. GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities
on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC
Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public
Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are
available at the Development Center and on our website.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp
24. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a
licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes,
finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate
proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or
5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. 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 on the City’s website.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717
2.d
Packet Pg. 23
25. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works
prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the
exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is,
however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells.
This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the
pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line and 3-feet from side an
rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the
soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. The device must not
allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that
exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to
minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing
consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the
basement.
26. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the
Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for
the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or
into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private
property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works.
27. The site drainage system that collects runoff from downspouts and landscape area shall be a
separated from the pump system that discharges runoff from light wells. Plot and clearly label the
two separate systems and including the separate outfalls for each system.
28. UTILITIES: Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas
meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or
relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department.
29. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be
encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing
grade. Provide the following note on the Final Grading Plans. “In my professional judgement, the
highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in
the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. As a result, the proposed drainage system for
the basement retaining wall will not encounter and pump groundwater during the life of this wall.”
30. DEWATERING: Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows
groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed.
Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm
drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater
level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall
determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by
drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the
contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition
Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge
2.d
Packet Pg. 24
and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an
independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and
submit the results to Public Works.
Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Grading Permit. The applicant
can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan
during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a Grading
Permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering
requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has dewatering guidelines available at the
Development Center and on our website. See link below:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp
31. WATER FILLING STATION: applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the
dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the
right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the
filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for
onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be
installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to
be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit
cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station
will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works.
32. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the
public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans
must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor
performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development
Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk
associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the
standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned
driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip.
33. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-
of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit
for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF
THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE
BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.”
34. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not
stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.”
Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite.
35. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace those portions of
the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the
frontage(s) of the property. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit
2.d
Packet Pg. 25
so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site
plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work.
The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by
a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the
Development Center. A scan copy of the Site Inspection Directive shall be included in the plan set.
Site plan shall reference required work.
36. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work
must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works
Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the
Site Plan.
37. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of
impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and
proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area
Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center
or on our website.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2718
38. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of
the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our
website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
39. 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 on the grading and drainage plan:
• Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.
• Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
• Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.
• Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.
• Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.
• Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces
40. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be 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. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be
dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity
to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may
require a Logistics Plan during construction.”
2.d
Packet Pg. 26
PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE
41. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. On drawing A1, please include the following two items:
a. Outline of type 2 tree protection fencing around the 4" Crataegus.
b. Outline of tree protection fencing around the 5" Crape myrtle at property line.”
42. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE: On drawing A1, please include the following two items:
Outline of type 2 tree protection fencing around the 4" Crataegus.
Outline of tree protection fencing around the 5" Crape myrtle at property line.
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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site
monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet
T-1) and, (c) 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.
2.d
Packet Pg. 27
47. 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.
48. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or
trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with
manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with
diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring
method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be
printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor.
49. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following
information and notes on relevant plan sheets:
a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-
sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development
Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783.
The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the
Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban
Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree
preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies)
b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the
City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2,
T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index.
c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading &
drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must
delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing
around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection
Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site
Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone
enclosure.
UTILITIES – ELECTRICITY
GENERAL
50. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements
noted during plan review.
51. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and
private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact
Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work.
52. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters
including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division.
Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The
2.d
Packet Pg. 28
demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and
removed.
THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE
53. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications
involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal.
54. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
55. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the
service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the
City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
56. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the
Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
57. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall
be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between
the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a
manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements.
58. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment
according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule &
Regulation #18.
Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility
deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges
include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule
& Regulation #20.
59. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of
offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric
Utility.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
60. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before
digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips.
61. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service
Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas
to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the
customer or contractor when construction is complete.
2.d
Packet Pg. 29
62. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads)
required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary
conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no
1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City
at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part
of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant.
63. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be
inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
64. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors and other
required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards.
65. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment
Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter
installations.
66. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be
submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to:
Gregory McKernan, P.E.
Power Engineer
Utilities Engineering (Electrical)
1007 Elwell Court
Palo Alto, CA 94303
67. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal.
68. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
69. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits
(number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT
70. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for
City use.
71. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection
Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
72. All fees must be paid.
73. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant.
2.d
Packet Pg. 30
GREEN BUILDING
37. The project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000
square feet and therefore must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC
16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the
Permit Plans.
38. The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000
square feet and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water
infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the
requirements on the Permit Plans.
39. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and
installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where
water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or
structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013).
40. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be
scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of
the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system
maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water
allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord.
5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans.
2.d
Packet Pg. 31
ATTACHMENT E
Project Plans and Initial Study
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 “2342 Yale Street” 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=4502&TargetID=319
2.e
Packet Pg. 32
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10678)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/17/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 3585 El Camino Real: Mixed-Use (1st Formal)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3585 El Camino Real
[17PLN-00305]: Consideration on Applicant’s Request for
Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the
Demolition of an Existing Structure and Construction of a New
Three-Story Mixed-Use Building. A Consideration of a Variance
to the Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping Requirement.
Environmental Assessment: Pending Mitigated Negative
Declaration in Accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CN. For More Information
Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP at
sahsing@m-group.us
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Consider the proposed project and provide feedback on the project design to staff and
applicant, then continue it to a date uncertain.
Report Summary
The applicant proposes a three-story mixed-use project on a 6,276 square foot (sf) site at the
intersection of El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. The project replaces an existing vacant
structure, which is not considered a historic resource. The project is subject to the architectural
review findings, context-based design criteria, and proposes to use the Housing Incentive
Program (PAMC 18.16.060(k)). The applicant requests a variance from the Zoning Code
requirement for perimeter landscaping of parking lots.
Background
Project Information
Owner: KSS Management LLC (Fangzhou Song)
3
Packet Pg. 33
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
Architect: Joseph Bellomo
Representative: Pratima Shah
Legal Counsel: Not Applicable
Property Information
Address: 3585 El Camino Real
Neighborhood: Ventura
Lot Dimensions & Area: 60’ x 104.6’ (0.14 acres/6,276 square feet)
Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable
Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable
Protected/Heritage Trees: Not Applicable
Historic Resource(s): Property determined ineligible for National Register or California
Register listing during in City’s 1998-2000 Historic Resources Survey
Existing Improvement(s): 1,725 square feet; one-story; height; 1946
Existing Land Use(s): Vacant
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: (Multi-family residential) RM-30
West: (Commercial) Service Commercial - CS
East: (Service Station / multi-family residential) Neighborhood
Commercial - CN / RM-30
South: (Vacant) Neighborhood Commercial - CN
Aerial View of Property:
3
Packet Pg. 34
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
Source: Image and data Google, 2019
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
Context-Based
Design Criteria: Yes
Downtown Urban
Design Guide: Not Applicable
South of Forest Avenue
Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable
Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable
El Camino Real Design
Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes
Proximity to Residential
Uses or Districts (150'): Yes
Located w/in the Airport Not Applicable
3
Packet Pg. 35
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
Influence Area:
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: None
PTC: None
HRB: None
ARB: None
Project Description
The proposed project would demolish the existing structure and construct a three-story, mixed-
use development at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. The total
lot area is 0.14 acres (6,276 square feet). The project would include 2,500 square feet of office
space and three residential dwelling units (two 1-bedroom units and one 2-bedroom unit).
Office uses will be located on the first floor, office space and a residential unit will be on the
second floor, and two residential units will be on the third floor.
The project proposes a contemporary design using slag concrete mixture, three-form cladding
(translucent resin product), glass and perforated metal screening. Planters are included on the
first level along El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue, balconies are included on the upper
levels. Residential units include terraces for open space that hang over the sidewalk while
remaining on private property.
Mechanical parking lifts within the building and covered surface parking are provided onsite.
The rear of the lot includes the driveway, surface parking, electrical transformer, trash and
recycling enclosure, long-term bicycle parking, and limited vegetation.
The project includes a less-than-five-foot perimeter landscaping strip around the parking lot,
based on space constraints. The project would require approval of an exception or a variance
for the proposed narrower width.
Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview:
The following discretionary applications are being requested:
• Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is
set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and
recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director
for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the
Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR
projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the
affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project
redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in
Attachment C.
• Variance: -- The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC
18.76.030. Variance applications are reviewed by the Planning & Community
3
Packet Pg. 36
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
Environment Director. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed
within 14 days. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project.
Failure to make any one finding requires redesign or denial. The findings to approve a
Variance application are provided in Attachment C.
Analysis1
Neighborhood Setting and Character
The project site is a corner lot that backs on to an alley that is parallel with El Camino Real for
three blocks. The site was formerly an auto-related use that required hazardous materials
remediation. This remediation has taken place and the County of Santa Clara case is now
closed. Generally, the buildings in the area are retail establishments of one to two stories in
height with a vacant lot across El Camino Real. To the rear of the property and across the alley
are several two-story multi-family residential buildings.
The project’s design appears to meet the criteria in Finding #2 in that the proposed three-story
building provides transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use
designations. The project appears to be consistent with the context-based design criteria,
however, staff would appreciate the Board’s comments on this subject.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2
The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of
the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and
is used by City staff to regulate building and development, and to make recommendations on
projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with
applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The property’s land use designation, Neighborhood Commercial, includes shopping centers
with off-street parking or a cluster of street-front stores serving the immediate neighborhood.
Examples include Charleston Center, Edgewood Center, and Midtown. Typical uses include
supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-service
laundries, dry cleaners, and hardware stores. In locations along El Camino Real and Alma Street,
residential and mixed-use projects may also be considered as meeting this land use category.
Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers,
higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations.
1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony
may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A
change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this
report.
2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
3
Packet Pg. 37
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
On balance, the project appears to be consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan
and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. Staff will perform a detailed review of the
project’s consistency prior to the project’s next hearing.
Zoning Compliance3
Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning
development standards (Attachment B). The proposed project complies with all applicable
codes except for the width of the parking lot perimeter landscape strip; the applicant seeks
permission to deviate from this code standard.
Context-Based Design Criteria and Performance Criteria Consideration and Findings
The project is subject to Zoning Compliance, Architectural Review approval findings. In addition,
Context-Based Design Consideration and Findings found in PAMC Chapter 18.16.090 are
applicable to projects in the CN zone district. Performance Standards are found in PAMC 18.23.
The applicable criteria and findings are included as Attachment C.
Parking Lot Landscape Requirements
The site plan shows half of the property devoted to the building and mechanical parking, while
the other half is devoted to components that support the building such as the driveway, surface
parking, electrical transformer, trash/recycling enclosure, long-term bicycle parking, and limited
vegetation.
The project requires five-foot perimeter landscaping around the parking lot (PAMC
18.54.040(a)), however, based on space constraints, the project cannot comply with this
requirement. In accordance with the PAMC, residential uses are permitted in the CN district
only if they are multi-family and only if they are a part of a mixed-use project. According to the
PAMC, multi-family is considered at least three units.
In addition to the typical development standards that create the building envelop for the
project, other development standards are triggered such as parking requirements (number of
spaces and parking lot facility design), covered trash enclosures, electrical transformers,
electrical charging stations, and bicycle parking. Implementation of the project and these
development standards becomes difficult to achieve on a small lot, such as the project site. In
addition, another site constraint is that overhead utilities are located on the project side of the
service alley with a utility pole located at the northwest property line and the alley. This utility
pole includes a guide wire that is located parallel with the alley and on the property.
One of the benefits of having the perimeter landscaping is to soften the hardscape and create a
transition between the parking lot and the property line. In this case, while horizontal
landscape is difficult to achieve, vertical landscaping can be included. Large canopy or tall trees
are not advised in this location because of the proximity to the overhead utilities and the
potential to impede with the service alley operations. The project proposes Japanese Maples,
3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca
3
Packet Pg. 38
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
which would be appropriate in this location and situation because they have small canopies and
do not interfere with the service alley.
A Variance is requested to deviate from the landscape requirement. Development projects
require supporting infrastructure and facilities such as transformers and trash/recycling
enclosures. These facilities have minimum size, placement and spacing requirements that take
up area that could be used for landscaping. These siting requirements make it increasing
challenging for projects with small lots.
In particular, this issue also affects Architectural Review Finding #5 regarding onsite
landscaping. Staff seeks input from the ARB regarding Finding #5.
Multi-Modal Access & Parking
The project would meet the parking requirement with a combination of mechanical lifts and
surface parking. The mechanical lifts are screened from view in accordance with the PAMC.
Access to the parking is from Matadero Avenue via a driveway.
The project includes three long-term (located off the alley) bicycle spaces and two short-term
bicycle spaces (located off of Matadero Avenue) on site.
The project appears to meet Finding #4 regarding pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Consistency with Application Findings
Based on the project’s application requests, findings are required for approval of the
Architectural Review and Variance. Staff seeks input from the ARB on the findings and the
deviation for the landscape requirements. Example findings are included in Attachment C.
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, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration is being prepared and will be circulated for public comment prior to the project’s
next hearing.
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 October 4, 2019, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on
October 2, 2019, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related public comments were received.
3
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 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: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)
• Attachment C: ARB and Variance Findings (DOCX)
• Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)
4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 40
3.a
Packet Pg. 41
ATTACHMENT B
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
3585 El Camino Real, 17PLN-00305
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT)
Mixed-Use and Residential Development Standards
Regulation Required Existing Proposed
Minimum Site Area, width and
depth
None
0.14 acres (6,276 sf)
0.14 acres
Minimum Front Yard
0-10 feet to create an
8-12 foot effective
sidewalk width (8)
70 feet 4’-10”(12’-0” from
face of curb for
effective sidewalk
width)
Rear Yard
10 feet for residential
portion; no
requirement for
commercial portion
5 feet 49 feet
Interior Side Yard
None (not abutting
residential district)
10 feet 6 inches
Street Side Yard 5 feet 10 feet 5 feet
Build-to-lines
50% of frontage built
to setback on El
Camino Real
33% of side street built
to setback on
Matadero Avenue
Front: 0%
Street Side: 0%
Front: 71%
Street Side: 47%
Max. Site Coverage (k) 50% (3,138 sf)
28% (1,757 sf) 60% (3,735 sf), see (k)
Housing Incentive
Program note below
Landscape/Open Space
Coverage
35% Not applicable 37%
Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit Not applicable 1-bedroom unit: 180 sf
1-bedroom unit: 270 sf
2-bedroom unit: 495 sf
Max. Building Height 35 ft 20 feet 35 feet
Max. Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)(4)(k)
Residential: 0.5:1
(3,138 sf)
Non-Residential: 0.5:1
(3,138 sf)
Total Mixed-Use: 1.0:1
(6,252 sf)
27% (1,725 sf) Residential: 0.67:1
(4,191 sf)
Non-Residential: 0.4:1
(2,500 sf)
Total Mixed-Use:
1.07:1 (6,691 sf)
See (k) Housing
Incentive Program
note below
3.b
Packet Pg. 42
Daylight Plane for lot lines
abutting one or more
residential zoning districts
Daylight plane height
and slope shall be
identical to those of
the most restrictive
residential zoning
district abutting the lot
line
Not applicable Not applicable
Residential Density (net)(3) 15 or 20 (9) Not applicable 20 du/acre (3 units)
Parking Lot Perimeter
Landscaping (18.54.040a)
Five feet Not applicable Zero to two feet and
not continuous
(3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial
use.
(4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1
(0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential).
(8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage.
(9) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre are allowed on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. Other
CN zoned sites not located on El Camino Real are subject to a maximum residential density of up to 15 units/acre.
(k) Housing Incentive Program
(1) For an exclusively residential or residential mixed-use project in the CC(2) zone or on CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real,
the Director may waive the residential floor area ratio (FAR) limit and the maximum site coverage requirement after the project with
the proposed waiver or waivers is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, if the Director finds that a project exceeding these
standards is consistent with the required architectural review findings. In no event shall the Director approve a commercial FAR that
exceeds the standard in Table 4 of Section 18.16.060(b) or a total FAR (including both residential and commercial FAR) in excess of 2.0
in the CC(2) zone or 1.5 in the CN or CS zone.
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT) continued
Mixed-Use Residential Development Standards
Topic Requirement Proposed
Hours of Operation
(18.16.040 (b))
Businesses with activities any time between the hours
of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain
a conditional use permit. The director may apply
conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to
assure compatibility with the nearby residentially
zoned property
The application does not
include a request for late
night hours.
Office Use Restrictions
(18.16.050)
Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall
not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is
permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use.
The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued
by the Director.
2,500 sf
18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CN district shall comply with the performance
criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development
18.16.090 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.
3.b
Packet Pg. 43
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)
for Residential & Office
Type Required Existing Proposed
Vehicle Parking Office: 1/250 sf: 10
spaces
Residential:
1-bedroom: 1 per unit
(2 spaces)
2-bedroom: 2 per unit
(2 spaces)
Total: 14 spaces
Zero Office: 10 spaces
Residential: 4 spaces
Bicycle Parking Office: 1/2,500 sf = 1
Residential: 1 per unit
(LT) = 3
Zero 3 long term
2 short term
Loading Space 0-9,999 sf = zero Zero Zero
3.b
Packet Pg. 44
ATTACHMENT B
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
3585 El Camino Real
17PLN-00305
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings
for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design
guides.
Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency
Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping
centers with off-street parking or a cluster of
street-front stores that serve the immediate
neighborhood. Examples include Charleston
Center, Edgewood Center and Midtown. Typical
uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores,
variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-
service laundries, dry cleaners and hardware
stores. In locations along El Camino Real and Alma
Street, residential and mixed use projects may
also locate in this category. Non-residential FARs
will range up to 0.4. Consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing
near transit centers, higher density multi-family
housing may be allowed in specific locations.
Consistency will be determined prior to the next
hearing
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-1.11: Hold new development to the
highest development standards in order to
maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the
highest quality development with the least
impacts.
Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled
structures are compatible with the neighborhood
and adjacent structures
Policy L-4.15 Recognize El Camino Real as both a
3.c
Packet Pg. 45
local serving and regional serving corridor,
defined by a mix of commercial uses and
housing.
Program L-9.10.2: Encourage the use of compact
and well-designed utility elements, such as
transformers, switching devices, backflow
preventers and telecommunications
infrastructure. Place these elements in locations
that will minimize their visual intrusion.
Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should
manage parking demand generated by the
project, without the use of on-street parking,
consistent with the established parking
regulations. As demonstrated parking demand
decreases over time, parking requirements for
new construction should decrease.
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.
The project is consistent with the following Neighborhood Commercial (CN) context-based design
criteria, as further described below:
1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment,
and connectivity through design elements
2. Street Building Facades
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street
(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design
elements
3. Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks
3.c
Packet Pg. 46
4. Low Density Residential Transitions
Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be
taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties
5. Project Open Space
Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of
the site
6. Parking Design
Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project
or detract from the pedestrian environment
7. Large Multi-Acre Sites
Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are
consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood
8. Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be
incorporated into the project
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.c
Packet Pg. 47
Variance Findings
PAMC 18.76.030
(1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not
limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the
requirements and regulations prescribed in Title 18 substantially deprives such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the
subject property.
(2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the
regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject
property.
(3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning).
(4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, or convenience.
3.c
Packet Pg. 48
Performance Criteria
3585 El Camino Real 17PLN-00305
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.
18.23.030 Lighting
To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or
nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways.
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.
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
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.
3.c
Packet Pg. 49
Performance Criteria Project Consistency
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3.c
Packet Pg. 50
102 University Avenue, Suite 3C • Palo Alto, CA • 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • www.bellomoarchitects.com
1
Date: Sept 30 th 2019
To: City of Palo Alto Planning Department
Attn: Sheldon Ah Sing
Subject: Major Architectural Review of development at 3585 El Camino Real
Introduction:
We, Bellomo Architects together with KSS management, present, for your
architectural review, a mixed-use building - one with office and residential
spaces.
The building unifies commercial and residential use, and celebrates the City of
Palo Alto’s tradition and innovation. The building will provide cutting-edge
commercial spaces for businesses and residences; encourage walkable, livable,
and sustainable urban lifestyle.
Our goal is to create a building that will revitalize the corner, which has been
vacant for past 27 years.
The building will create a vibrant “node” with neighborhood oriented commercial
uses that serve the surrounding residential area. The building will promote
harmonious transition in scale and character between different designated land
uses.
Existing Conditions:
The 6252 sq. ft. lot is located on the Southwest Corner of El Camino Real and
Matadero Avenue with 60 ft. frontage on El Camino Real and 110 ft on Matadero
Avenue with a 20 ft. wide alley on the North side.
The property is neighboring two story commercial buildings on El Camino Real, a
gas station on Matadero Avenue and a residential apartment complex on the
alley.
The lot has been vacant for the last 27 years. It has a metal shed, approx. 800
sq. ft., which was once used as a garage or an automobile repair center. The
shed is in a distressed condition and has been partially dismantled for safety
reasons. It will be demolished prior to the proposed development.
3.d
Packet Pg. 51
102 University Avenue, Suite 3C • Palo Alto, CA • 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • www.bellomoarchitects.com
2
Proposed Project:
We propose a three story, mixed use building with an office on the first floor, an
office and a residential unit on the second floor and two residential units on the
third floor
Project Program:
The proposed program follows the guidelines under Palo Alto’s Housing
Incentive Plan.
A Mixed Use Building
Two Office Spaces and Three Residential Units
Total Site Area: 6252 sq ft
Proposed Office Space: 2500 sq ft (permitted 3126 sq ft)
Proposed Residential space: 4191 sq ft
(As per the City of Palo Alto’s Housing Incentive Plan: Permitted residential FAR
is increased from 0.5 to 1.5. So permitted square footage is 9378 sq ft .
Proposed square footage is more than 50% less than the permitted)
First Floor:
Office Space: 1246 sq ft
Second Floor:
Office: 1020 sq ft
One Bedroom Residence: 1235 sq ft
Third Floor:
One Bedroom Residence: 892 sq ft
Two Bedroom Residence: 1187 sq ft
Car Parking:
Total Car Parking Spaces Required: 14
Total Car Parking Spaces Provided: 14
• Car Parking with three level mechanical lift systems: 11 cars
• One Van Accessible Space
• One Van Accessible Charging Station
• Two car parking spaces on grade as required by Palo Alto Municipal Code.
3.d
Packet Pg. 52
102 University Avenue, Suite 3C • Palo Alto, CA • 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • www.bellomoarchitects.com
3
Planning:
The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create
an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants,
visitors, and the general community.
The plan follows approximately an 11’-0” grid; with all utilities and services
located in the central core area.
The office spaces are located towards El Camino Real, and the residential units,
mainly bedrooms, are located towards the alley.
The ground floor facade has a rhythmic glass front which maintains 10’0”
storefront rhythm of neighboring buildings.
The Third Floor residential space is set back from El Camino to reduce massing,
create desirable terraces and provide privacy to the residential units.
Access:
Parking facilities are located on the rear half of the property with access from
Matadero Avenue.
The ground floor office has an entry on El Camino Real while the residences and
office space on the second floor have a stairway entry on Matadero Avenue near
the corner of El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue.
The proposed vehicular access eliminates the existing curb cut on El Camino
Real, thus providing cohesive building frontage and streetscape.
The property has a well-demarcated entries and circulation is safe and
convenient to pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles.
Setbacks:
On El Camino Real: Building sets back 4’0” to create 12’0” wide sidewalk
promoting pedestrian environment.
On Matadero Avenue: 5’-0” building set back.
Structural System:
1: First and Second Floor: Reinforced Concrete Exposed Structure
2: Third Floor: Metal Framing.
3.d
Packet Pg. 53
102 University Avenue, Suite 3C • Palo Alto, CA • 94301 • tel 650 326 0374 • www.bellomoarchitects.com
4
Sustainability:
The project would comply with the City’s Green Building Ordinance.
The design includes overhangs, recesses, and other shading devices (vertical
garden wall) and techniques to reduce the solar heat gain and energy
consumption related to the cooling of the building.
Materials:
The building will be composed of sustainable building materials with exposed
structural composition.
• Concrete: 70% replacement of cement with slag (a byproduct of iron
extraction process) into concrete mixture making it stronger and
environmentally friendly (cement is a significant emission polluter during
its refinement process). Slag also makes exposed concrete more
impermeable to water.
• Steel Framing: Steel is a renewable material.
• Thermo exterior glazing (double insulated low e-glazing) for energy
efficiency.
• Fleetwood operable doors and windows promote natural light, ventilation
as well as excellent acoustical values.
• 3 Form cladding: 3 Form is a manmade, renewable polymer material. The
cladding reduces building maintenance and avoids exterior paint.
• Solar panels will be located on the roof.
Landscape:
Landscape forms an integral part of this urban building. The design intent is to
create usable landscaped terraces which will form a buffer between the office
and residential spaces and the state highway.
The terraces will have potted plants. The Second Floor balcony on El Camino
Real will have a vertical screen garden. A cable trellis system will be provided
which will guide creepers potted in the planters in the balcony. The creepers and
the cable will create a beautiful garden wall with an interesting view and make
urban space more livable. It will also help in reducing solar gain, mitigating noise
and dust.
There are no existing trees on or on the sidewalk of the property.
We are proposing five trees, permitted by the City of Palo Alto on sidewalk along
El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue.
The parking is shaded with corrugated metal roofing.
END
3.d
Packet Pg. 54
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10762)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 10/17/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Minutes of September 5, 2019
Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for
September 5, 2019.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Draft minutes from the September 5, 2019 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in
Attachment A.
Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB
A hard copy of the minutes of the above referenced meeting will be made available at the ARB
hearing in the Council Chambers at 8:30 am.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: September 5, 2019 Draft Minutes (DOCX)
4
Packet Pg. 55
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew and David
Hirsch.
Absent: None.
Chair Baltay: Good morning, everybody. I apologize for the delay. Could we have a roll call, please?
[Roll Call]
Oral Communications
Chair Baltay: First item on our agenda is oral communications. If there’s any members of the public who
would like to address us…? I don’t see anybody.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Baltay: Next item is agenda changes, additions and deletions. Do we have anything, Jodie? No?
City Official Reports
1. Recognition of Alicia Spotwood and her Years of Service to the Board. Introduction of Vinhloc “Vinh”
Nguyen and Overview of Support Responsibilities.
Chair Baltay: Office reports. Alicia Spotwood, what can we say?
Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Yes. Alicia is not able to make it this morning. She’s on to her
next job duties, but I really did want to thank her for her 19 years of service to the ARB. I hadn’t realized
it was that long until I was talking to her. She said she started on her very first day. We now have Vinh,
who is starting on his very first day, handling the ARB. Any questions that you have, probably best to email
the both of us, and then, Vinh will be sending out the packets to you, and things like that.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, we look forward to working with you, Vinh.
Vihn Nguyen: Likewise.
Chair Baltay: Those are big shoes to fill.
2. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future
Agenda items.
Chair Baltay: Meeting schedule, Jodie.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: September 5, 2019
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
4.a
Packet Pg. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. We do have changes to the schedule. We thought we were going to have one item on
the 19th. That project has been delayed. There are some parking things that we were working out, but
there also seems to be some FEMA flood zone issues, that they might be going over the valuation and need
to do additional work. They are figuring that out. So, we are not going to have a meeting at the middle of
September. That meeting will be cancelled.
Chair Baltay: Wonderful. Okay.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00129] Request for Architectural
Review to Allow for Modifications of the Exterior Storefronts and Market Plaza Area for "Sigona's
Market", "Schaub's Meat, Fish, and Poultry", "Cocola Bakery", Along with Changes to the Service
Entrance Façade at Building E within the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment:
Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per
Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial).
Chair Baltay: We move on to our first action item. It’s a public hearing about 180 El Camino Real, a request
for architectural review to allow for modifications to the exterior storefronts and M market plaza area for
Sigona’s Market, Schaub’s Meet, Fish and Poultry, Cocola Bakery, along with changes to the service
entrance façade at Building E within the Stanford Shopping Center. Before we start, do we have any
disclosures? Alex?
Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday.
Chair Baltay: Osma?
Vice Chair Thompson: I’ve been to the site.
Chair Baltay: David?
Board Member Hirsch: I visited the site yesterday.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Likewise, I also visited the site and have nothing else to add. Okay. Do we have a staff
report on this?
Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner: Hello, good morning, Board. My name is Samuel Gutierrez, Associate
Planner, and also known as the Stanford Shopping Center planner, presenting yet another Stanford
Shopping Center project to you. We’ll start with the title page here. You’ll see a map here, and this is the
area of the shopping center that’s being worked on. It involves three existing tenants, Schaub’s, Cocola’s
and Sigona's. Also, there is a common entrance that you may recall that’s between The Melt and the Pacific
Catch that leads to the internal corridors and back-of-house areas for the other tenants in Building E. That’s
also included here, along with what we call the market area plaza upgrades. The project is to renovate
existing facades of the market plaza tenants, the plaza site plan improvements, and façade improvements
to the shopping center common area that I just mentioned. There’s going to be new, modern façade
designs, new planters and tree rail grates, new signage, and new exterior light fixtures. With this project,
there is no changes to existing uses, tenants, floor area, coverage, parking and circulation when it comes
to vehicle parking and circulation and how that’s impacting, being impacted by this project. Here again is
just an overview of the shopping center. There is a highlighted triangle superimposed on the area where
this project is located at. It is the main entry to the shopping center if you’re coming off of Sand Hill. That
will lead you to the kind of core of the shopping center. This is a photo of the existing conditions. As you
can see, there are a number of mature trees there in the plaza area, but peeking behind, you can see the
Sigona’s storefront with the green awning, kind of arrangement with the tan awnings where fruit and
vegetable stands are located. And then you’ll see the Schaub’s to the right of that, and that has the barrel
configured awning with a metal trim piece. It’s difficult to see, but on the far left you’ll see these tan arches
4.a
Packet Pg. 57
City of Palo Alto Page 3
on the building on the left, and that’s were Cocola Bakery is located. To start the façade improvements,
here’s a better shot of Cocola’s. You can see the arches there, and you can see the proposed façade for
Cocola Bakery. They’re going to utilize precast façade profile, so it will change from the arch shape to
rectangular, which actually mimics what Pacific Catch is currently constructing, again, from a few months
ago. It’s more rectangular, angular, rather than these smooth, curved arches that they’re going from. There
will be these upper trellis planks that is internally illuminated. There is a new canopy. Instead of the existing
canopy, which is metal and glass, this one will have metal and wood, kind of tying in that upper wood
façade design. The existing plaster is going to be painted a combination of gray and beige. You can see
that there. There will be new wall-mounted sconces at each of these new rectangular, kind of precast
concrete forms. You can see that at each point of that rendering there. Here we see the Sigona’s façade in
the existing condition. It’s mostly a blank wall of the façade tenant space. Really, the draw is the fruit
stands and vegetable stands at the bottom, beneath the awning. The awning is going to get upgraded, as
well. It’s going to this metal and wood look with, again, an upper trellis wooden design, and it’s utilizing
tan and beige colors for the upper and lower facades. The storefront trims are going to be in dark gray,
and there are also new light fixtures on this façade. Here you will see the Schaub’s, which is mimicking the
other kind of tannish-gray combination, except that it has this unique graphic print, which is on the sample
board before you. It gives it a unique look, but also maintains its character and differentiates it from the
other tenants, that it is a different tenant. Again, it’s this gray and beige kind of color combination
throughout, using rectangular forms, cleaner awnings, going away from the existing canvas awning to a
metal and wooden awning. There will be new exterior light sconces on the Schaub’s as well. And then, the
recessed entry, because Schaub’s does have sort of a recessed entry at the bottom, there’s going to be
new limestone, kind of porcelain tile flooring in there to kind of change over from the market plaza of
concrete floor to, now you’re entering into the Schaub’s tenant space. It’s kind of a transition. Here, we
can see the façade improvements for that common back-of-house area, which is between The Melt and
Pacific Catch. On the left you can see the existing condition. Again, it’s the old arch, and it’s being changed
to this rectangular form, again, matching Pacific Catch and the greater market area with more rectangular
forms. It is in this kind of neutral pattern, you know, beige and light grays and earth tones. It looks more
modernized, but it also still looks like it’s not a tenant space. It appears like it is an employee space, or
some other access not for the public. In reviewing the project, staff considered the bicycle parking for the
area. With all these upgrades, it’s going to become more of a draw for this area. With Pacific Catch under
construction, and then, these three tenant spaces being renovated, we felt that there should be more
bicycle parking located in this area. On the Pacific Catch side of the market space, which is further up the
drive aisle from this space, there are a number of bike racks that are going to be replaced there. They are
taken out currently because of construction, but they will be replaced. That left side, if you’re looking at
this market plaza from Sand Hill, is covered with short-term bicycle parking, but the right side didn’t have
any. We conditioned that three short-term bike racks be located here in this location as you enter from
Sand Hill at Plum Lane. It’s currently in front of the Sprinkle’s location, so that would help increase the
bicycle parking for the shopping center overall, and for the capacity of bicycle parking in this location of
the shopping center. Here’s a site plan overview. You can see the mature trees there, and there is some
new tree grates proposed. These are similar to those that were proposed for Pacific Catch. They are the
heel proof, so you could easily walk over them, no matter what kind of shoes you are wearing. Or, if you
have a stroller, or if you have some kind of walker or wheelchair, which expands the pedestrian walkable
surface area. That is an improvement to the plaza overall. Also included here is location of planter boxes,
new planter boxes in front of Schaub’s and Sigona's. In front of the Schaub’s, you’ll see these little green
dots at each pillar of the façade. That’s a small planter. Where the Sigona's wraps around into the interior
corridor of the subcommittee, there are these larger planter boxes there, which currently don’t exist. Again,
this is an existing photo. You can see the tree wells don’t have any kind of grates at all, so it does limit a
bit of the walkable, comfortable surface. The tree grates would be a significant improvement to this area.
Just an overview of the landscaping. The project proposes to retain all of the trees. None of the trees will
be removed. They will remain. Again, the new planter boxes around Schaub’s and Sigona's. However, a
landscape plan with the actual plant selection was not provided for the ARB to review. The size of the
planters would limit the total number of plants, so, again, the planter boxes in front of Schaub’s are small
and probably for a singular plant. Maybe some type of grass or something -- it’s shown on Sheet A-102 –
while other planters, they are larger and provide some opportunity for some variation. Staff recommends
that the Board discuss the landscape options for this location. It is still limited. It’s not very involved
4.a
Packet Pg. 58
City of Palo Alto Page 4
landscaping, so we would appreciate your feedback on that. Here is the signage, just some of the tenant
spaces again; the renderings. Currently, there are three signs for Sigona's, four for Schaub’s, and two for
Cocola. Each tenant space has a blade sign and a main façade sign, and then, a secondary façade sign.
One thing that was noted was the Schaub’s main façade, which faces the Sand Hill entry before it angles
into the market plaza, there was a sign proposed to be directly above an existing bench, which is adjacent
to the Sprinkle’s tenant space. That sign would not meet the master tenant façade guidelines for the
shopping center, so that was conditioned to be removed because it would be a secondary sign on a primary
wall. There is a similar sign on the other wall to the left of this rendering, and that is where secondary
signs would go, so that would remain. Key considerations for the ARB would be the applicability to policy
documents of the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program; architectural design, theme, cohesiveness and
quality of materials; and comments and feedback for the landscaping. Staff recommends that the ARB
recommend approval to the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based
on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval, with a requirement for the landscaping selection
to be reviewed and approved by the ARB subcommittee. That concludes staff’s presentation.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sam. Next, the applicant, do you have a presentation for us? You’ll have 10
minutes to speak.
Jason Smith, Land Shark Development Services: Good morning, Board members.
Chair Baltay: If you could state and spell your name for the record. You’ll have 10 minutes.
Mr. Smith: Jason Smith [spells name], with Land Shark Development Services.
Matt Woods, GHA Design: Matt Woods with GHA Design [spells name].
Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Mr. Woods: Sam actually picked up on 90 percent of our design. We speak a little bit as to the “why.” This
is an exterior design project for us, specially looking at vertical surfaces and horizontal surfaces in this
market area. The intention, as you know, if you’ve walked it, it’s not grubby, but it’s getting a little unsafe
in some areas. I’ve personally actually watched people trip in the landscape zone where the trees or sitting,
so that’s kind of driving a little bit of this. This wasn’t initially part of the project. It was really an elevation
project at first, and we kind of brought this part back. Our push and our goal, I think, is really to get the
hardscape going prior to, actually completed prior to shopping season, which is in November, and get all
that taken care of, and then, come back later and rework all the facades for the tenants after the shopping
season. Again, the hardscape in this area, we’d do all new paving areas – go to that one sheet; the next
one – this kind of shows the boundaries of all the paving areas. Start from Pacific Catch. They move
around… Is there a pointer, or something? Or no? You can’t do that? Right in front of Pacific Catch, there
is one little tiny spot where we’re adjusting the curb. That’s to meet our 10-foot radius in front of the
seating zone that’s already out there. Everything else holds its line. We hold the lease lines; we hold the
exterior façade lines. We’re pulling back in the full depth of Sigona's, and we move over outside a shop.
There’s a tiny tiled area in there which actually breaches their lease line, so we’re going to do concrete
hardscape up to their lease line. From there, in, is really there’s, but we’re going to finish that off for them
with that concrete-looking porcelain tile that you saw in the package. All new tree grates, something you
can walk across. Right now, you can’t navigate easily in a wheelchair or a stroller, and of course, with the
furniture and stuff, it shuffles around a little bit here and there. We’re trying to tidy all that stuff up and
just make it very navigable and much cleaner. Let’s go to the exterior stuff. We can talk real quick. The
facades here, they’re all existing tenants, they are existing storefronts, so we’re not adjusting the
storefronts. We’re just going through and cleaning everything, repainting, resurfacing. All the stucco is
going to be resurfaces, patched, repaired and repainted. And then, we’ve applied some sort of a trellis
element in front of a few of them, [inaudible] façade. Rearranged their signage so they have better visuals.
The signs that you saw are all internally illuminated, but it’s halo, so it’s not shining back out to the parking
lot or back towards the street. There are a couple tiny letters that say, like, “meat” and “fish” and that.
Those are push-through acrylics, and they do shine, but they don’t blast light the same way. We’re trying
4.a
Packet Pg. 59
City of Palo Alto Page 5
to keep everything low-key retail and pretty sharp looking. The Schaub’s version, that actually is going to
have a skin treatment on there, which is a painterly, so more like silkscreen on site. That’s going to give it
a little bit of rusticated look to it.
That will fit in with the trees and everything that are there and keep it a little bit more natural and softer.
As you wrap the corner to the concourse, there is an existing mural. We’re staying completely out of that,
and I think our upper left elevation kind of shows the boundaries of how that tenant jobs around there.
We’re trying to keep that really clean, as well. Keeping on that particular tenant, that corner, it is an existing
corner that wraps on a bit of a roll. They have a tile treatment that comes down from the lower two feet
of the façade and rolls into the walking way. It’s kind of decaying right now, so that is being removed, and
that’s where those planters are going. It’s kind of replacing that, puts the space back in there for us. I think
that’s relatively it.
Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you very much. Do we have any questions of either the applicant or staff? David,
do you?
Board Member Hirsch: Just starting where you ended up, the planters that you’re planning for the return.
There’s a certain base height to the building before the beginning of the window line. Are you matching
that window line with the planters, and is it sufficient to provide depth for planters?
Mr. Woods: It’s a sufficient planter. There’s actually a landscape architect that is in retainer with the center,
and they’ll be looking at all the actual planters.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, good. It’s one step out from your responsibility, then.
Mr. Woods: My responsibility, right.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. You know…
Board Member Lew: David, there are cut… The planters are on the materials sheet. Eight hundred. And
the heights are listed, like 24 and 30 inches.
Board Member Hirsch: Which does match up.
Mr. Woods: Yeah, it matches up.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Mr. Smith: And the specific plants themselves are being reviewed and proposed by the onsite landscape
architect for the shopping center.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, fine. Actually, we’ll see a landscape plan a little later on? Is that what’s going
to happen with this?
Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. We recommended approval of the project with a subcommittee requirement for the
landscaping to come back.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, because I noticed that there’s a dead tree and a dying tree, so there’s really
some landscape issues, I think, that yet need to be addressed. Also, the paving is divided between concrete
paving and octangle paving, so we really haven’t seen that in this drawing to date, right? It’s yet to come
for us to review completely?
Chair Baltay: I think that’s right, David. They’ve said that the landscape package isn’t complete yet. Are
there any other questions? Alex, if you could?
4.a
Packet Pg. 60
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Board Member Lew: I have a question about bollards.
Mr. Woods: Could I speak to the landscape for a second?
Chair Baltay: Sure.
Mr. Woods: Yes, existing right now, the hardscape, it’s two different materials, and they actually settle
different, and that’s what’s been causing a bit of our problems. The new hardscape going in is the same
space, same locations, but it’s all concrete. It’s all the same materials. We don’t have to have [inaudible]
from materials and things adjusting and shuffling over time. The tree grates will fill the same spots, and
hopefully, just kind of, you know, clean and even surfaces all around.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Board Member Lew: I have a question about bollards. I think there are some existing illuminated bollards
on site.
Mr. Woods: Correct.
Board Member Lew: And I think the plans are showing some new bollards, and maybe more of them. And
then, they’re not being shown on any… I don’t think we have a cut sheet, and nothing showing up on the
photometrics, so I’m assuming that they’re not illuminated. I was wondering if you had a thought about
what’s happening there. Because I think you do need something because it’s a curbless condition.
Mr. Woods: There are bollards. We’ll make sure they’re illuminated.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, so, and then… I think maybe I would suggest, maybe for the Board, is that that
come back to subcommittee for review.
Mr. Smith: To adjust the photometric to identify those?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, and then, I don’t think we have a cut sheet for them, and I think the existing
conditions that I see now are, there may, like, four or five illuminated ones, and there may be one or two
metal poles. Maybe we just review all of that to make sure that it’s all coordinated, and it looks good.
Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. Osma, your question?
Vice Chair Thompson: I had a question on the patterning, the graphic. In our elevations, we’re showing a
bigger scale than what’s here on the material board, and I just wanted to clarify, at what scale is this
graphic going to have in it? Is our elevations more accurate, or is this accurate?
Mr. Woods: The elevations are more accurate. That’s really, kind of a sample. Even for our own use. This
would be mocked up on site so we kind of adjust the scale and make sure it’s right. It’s artist driven, so
what you see here is the direction we’ll go, and we’ll kind of work from there in a mock-up form.
Vice Chair Thompson: I see. Okay. Thank you. I’m sorry, I had one more. The extra entrance next to the
Pacific Catch, next to The Melt, which…? I haven’t seen an elevation of it outlining which materials and
which wood and which paint is going on there. Do we have that?
Mr. Woods: A-601.
Vice Chair Thompson: Ah, thank you.
Chair Baltay: Okay, any further questions? Then I’ll note that I don’t have any speaker cards here for
members of the public. Is there anyone here who wishes to address the Board on this issue? Okay, then
4.a
Packet Pg. 61
City of Palo Alto Page 7
I’ll bring the issue back to the Board. You gentlemen can sit or stand as you like. Who wants to start us
off? David?
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. In general, very nice presentation, with one comment about that. Labels.
When you have three different stores like this in different drawings, it would be very nice if you had labeled
each one so we could relate them one to the next. It’s very hard to read the drawings without proper
labels. I mean, I think, just to go over a list of items that you’ve done, you’ve worked on here. Starting
with the landscaping, filling in the tree grates, I noticed that there’s uplighting under the trees at present,
and also some electrical boxes within the tree pits, and you have a very nice pattern of a rectangular box-
like element that’s flat to the paving, which is a big help to pedestrian movement there. But it doesn’t really
indicate what’s going to happen with those particular utilities within the tree grate. Are they cut out of the
present existing…? Or, you know, are they cut out of the new grates that’s going to be applied?
Mr. Woods: Yes.
Board Member Hirsch: It will be adjusted accordingly to whatever is in there? And is the lighting then going
to stay in those locations?
Mr. Woods: Presently, some of them are damaged. They will be replaced with new and energy efficient.
Board Member Hirsch: Everything that you see, the utilities that are in the tree grate are going to remain?
Mr. Woods: Yes.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Well, it’s actually, in the daylight, it’s not such an attractive thing, with the
wires going up the trees.
Mr. Woods: Right.
Board Member Hirsch: I don’t know. There might be some further consideration when you work on your
landscaping, is how you electrify the tree lights, you know? And organize them for the trees, and how you
see it during the day as well as, as beautiful as it might be at night.
Mr. Woods: Right.
Board Member Hirsch: That’s just a caution that hopefully could come back during our committee meeting.
One of my biggest concerns is the pedestrian movement through this area. We’ve talked about it at Pacific
Catch when we were reviewing that project. It’s still a consideration because it’s a sort of dense collection
of trees, seating arrangements. There’s kind of a limited area between the trees where you could possibly
walk. If you walk in front of Pacific Catch, it’s a wider area. And then, with Sigona's… Well, at night, if they
pull it in, it’s going to be much more space, but during the day, they’ve taken up a lot of the plaza area.
So, hopefully, in a future plan, you could sort of… Maybe the whole shopping center could work on this
thought about how movement is through that area, to keep it open. It could certainly be improved by
reducing the number of seats since you already provide passage over the tree grate area, and it isn’t a trip
hazard anymore. Then, consider the flow of traffic through. Also consider how people will get to their car
from there, because instead of having to jog one way or another, look at the crosswalk relationship there
as well. I think that becomes very significant at that intersection. It’s quite a nice place to come to the mall,
you know? As one of the entries, I really always enjoyed it because of the variety of commercial at that
particular location. Having it becoming a market area is nice, and it’s going to be even improved, I think,
with Pacific Catch and the attraction of that retailer. But, therefore, all the more important to consider how
the traffic moves through the area, the pedestrian traffic. I like the lighting improvements. I think the fact
that you’re putting lighting at the end of the canopies and it’s going to light further out into the plazas are
a really great improvement. I had a question before about how the lighting fixtures are, the ones that are
there in the plaza, the high ones, they’re going to remain?
4.a
Packet Pg. 62
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Mr. Woods: They’re going to remain.
Board Member Hirsch: Those exact ones will remain. I guess that’s acceptable, you know?
Mr. Woods: They’ll be cleaned up and refurbished, yeah.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Moving on to… I am concerned that, you know, if you looked at your section,
some of the light fixtures, although I really like the idea of low light fixture sconces on the buildings, these
are going to be eight, nine feet high? Eight or nine feet above…? They’re fairly low if you consider people
moving, tall people moving by, and maintenance of those. I’m just, without wanting to see them removed
somehow, I’d like some assurance for your own sake that somebody tall won’t come along and damage
those, you know, that area. It’s a consideration, you know? But it’s nice to have them low. I mean, I really
like that. I notice that there’s air conditionings on Sigona's doorframes there, so it won’t look as clean as
what you’ve drawn, or how will you deal with the air…? There’s an air door machinery that they have
installed there. What will happen with that?
Mr. Smith: The air curtains are being proposed to be inside the building, so they will no longer be on the
exterior of the building.
Board Member Hirsch: Excellent. That will help clean up that façade tremendously. I noticed, I think there’s
kind of an error in one of your section drawings here. Well, I can’t see it right now. It’s sort of looking one
way and not looking the other way. You can go back and take a look. It just seems like it shows the wood
patterning coming down lower than the section would show it. But, whatever. The patterning is clear
enough if you go back and rethink it as a reviewer, where it is with the patterning of the wood above.
Which I think is excellently done, by the way, and such an improvement to the whole corner.
Mr. Woods: Thank you.
Board Member Hirsch: I mean, I think all the colors are kind of muted, the way you described them. I like
the effect of that. I think it’s a very big improvement. I had some other thoughts. Hold on a second, here.
Well, on the Cocola Bakery, it would have been so much nicer to see a demo drawing in some way, to see
how you progressed from the rounded front of everything to the flatter look, which we aren’t getting in a
large enough scale to really understand it. But looking a little more detailed, I think it comes across. In the
sample panel you have that as… What is CONO-1 stand for, then? The thicker stone?
Mr. Woods: That’s concrete, yes.
Board Member Hirsch: That’s a concrete panel that’s going to go all the way up the…?
Mr. Woods: That’s following the column line.
Board Member Hirsch: Following the column line…
Mr. Woods: Like a portal [crosstalk]
Board Member Hirsch: … but rectangular now, now rounded.
Mr. Woods: Right.
Board Member Hirsch: All of that façade is being stripped off and replaced with the rectangular.
Mr. Woods: The inset façade is where the arch is, and that gets [crosstalk].
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. A single inset in the middle of it.
4.a
Packet Pg. 63
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Mr. Woods: Yeah.
Board Member Hirsch: And that’s where the light fixtures are. The inset.
Mr. Woods: Oh, you’re on… I’m sorry, you’re on Cocola?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Well, I see them on the drawing, on A-400.
Mr. Woods: Yeah, it’s a perimeter that goes around, follows the column lines.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Mr. Woods: It’s like a portal.
Board Member Hirsch: It keeps the same kind of look but makes it a rectangular.
Mr. Woods: Right. Exactly.
Board Member Hirsch: I think that’s quite successful. Let’s see. I have a few more thoughts here. You
know, in terms of the planters, I think there was a comment made they’re awfully small, and they’re really
only going to take a single plant in each one. The ones in front of Schaub’s, they certainly look kind of
fussy to me when you have more, a larger, planters around Sigona's. That seems to work rather. Of course,
Sigona's is now going to lose a little of their area for, in the front, which at present is melon season there,
so… But it’s a nice return with the planters, I think, in front, and I don’t know how those things get adjusted
in the shopping center, but I agree that it’s a better way to do it, have it turn the corner there and give a
little more elegance to an area that gets a bit sloppy with all of the fruit vending stuff out there. In that
respect, it sort of makes me think that the areas that are pulled out are not part of the design effort really
by themselves. Sort of the stuff that all that fruit and stuff is sitting on is not a design issue, I guess. And
whatever Sigona's tends to want to put out there, they will be allowed to do so. We can’t get too fussy, I
supposed, about how a commercial tenant uses their space like that.
Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Hirsch, if I may. David. Just related, you were asking about pedestrian
trafficways, and now you’re talking about the sort of outside market area. I think some of the discussion
we had with Pacific Catch was that we wanted sort of an eight-foot walkway free and clear of obstructions.
It would be good for the Board to discuss – maybe we should be doing the same thing here – just where
that area might be. Is it just in front of Sigona's? Because we already have a walkway in front of Pacific
Catch, so if we just have the two walkways, maybe that would be good enough. But if we could talk about
that. And then, you were saying something about a dead tree, so, I didn’t know where that was located.
Is that just in the plaza area, or…?
Board Member Hirsch: No, it was… I noted it. Yeah, it’s closer to Schaub’s. Well, I think, you know, there
has to be some coordination between the shopping center and façade design. I know they are two distinct
things, so, I’m sure the shopping center has been doing some excellent work.
Mr. Smith: We’ll have the arborist look at the tree out there on site and confirm if it’s dead or if it needs…
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Now, as to the walkways, it really can’t be kind of in front of the two retail
storefronts that easily because of the way Sigona's places its exterior uses into that plaza. There would too
much of a jog, really, at that point, in order to make that work effectively. I think the shopping center could
come to us, and I think distances, as mentioned, is a good basis on which to analyze that.
Mr. Smith: And we are going to maintain an eight-foot clear space from the edge of any of the farmers
market that gets pushed out, to light standards and the actual trees themselves. There will be an eight-
foot clear maintained.
4.a
Packet Pg. 64
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Board Member Hirsch: Eight foot clear through the trees, or…?
Mr. Smith: No, the trees are existing, but from the edge of the display area to any obstructions, we’re going
to maintain an eight-foot clear. And then, the main path of travel along the corridor where Pacific Catch is,
they’re maintaining a clear path there as well.
Board Member Hirsch: What I saw, however, is that when you put the furniture out there, that there is no
eight-foot clear area.
Mr. Smith: Correct, through the furniture areas. But around the perimeter, the edges up against the markets
itself, are going to keep an eight-foot clear.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, but you know when you travel that, you have to take quite a jog to get around
there, to really get in front of Schaub’s and… It’s just not comfortable. I think if you really blow that up at
a larger scale and really think about how people are moving, you’ll question it and perhaps reduce the
amount of seating in the plaza to make it work.
Mr. Woods: We can provide a drawing of that as well, with red lines to kind of show where the flow is.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Mr. Woods: Right now, with those landscape pockets around the trees, they’ve fallen enough that you can’t
have chairs and tables overlap that.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Mr. Woods: All the furniture is actually pushed into the hard surfaces, which is not ideal. Once this new
stuff is all set up, it will make it a lot more flexible, for sure.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Mr. Woods: We’ll provide a drawing that shows the flow, the intended flow.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. You know, another thing about it is the drainage and the watering for those
trees. How is that done? I mean, this is a landscape issue, but I don’t want it left to the very, very end
here, because if the trees are not living or, you know, your arborists tell you you need something for that.
Mr. Gutierrez: There is a full-time maintenance crew at the shopping center that maintains the trees, as
well as all the planters in the shopping center.
Board Member Hirsch: Well, of course, the planting looks fabulous all the time over there. I’m expecting
that you will take a look at this one and it will look as good at some point. That’s all the comments I have.
Thank you very much. I just want to say thank you for the presentation, with a caution that we love labels,
and to make some of the text bigger so we can actually read it. I know that we can probably blow it up
ourselves on our computers, but sometimes an emphasis on… For example, all of the samples here, when
they’re three different facades, should be clearly delineated so we can make that comparison, the
comparisons.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Alex?
Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I think the design is very handsome. I think you’ve
worked really hard to sort of differentiate each storefront, but also fit it in with the new Pacific Catch. I
think that’s actually very successful, so I can recommend approval. And then, in addition to the staff
conditions of approval, I think I would add that we look at the bollard, especially if it’s illuminated. I do
support the condition of approval to review the landscaping. I do support the staff’s recommended addition
4.a
Packet Pg. 65
City of Palo Alto Page 11
of bike racks near Schaub’s. I think that’s all that I have. And I think that’s all that I have, so, that’s where
I am.
Chair Baltay: Wonderful. Thank you, Alex. Osma?
Vice Chair Thompson: Hi, there. Thank you for your presentation. I will get right into it. The detailing of
the wood slats gives me a little cause for concern. The material that you’ve presented here is a laminate
that has, like, the edges are showing black, and the detail that you’ve drawn doesn’t really show exactly
which side the black edges are, if it’s up-down or left-right. Kind of makes me wonder, regardless, why
wouldn’t you go with the real wood that you could see from all sides? I mean, really, what’s important is
from the pedestrian eye, that you’re seeing it from underneath, and then, also, all the sides. And I don’t
know how that laminate is going to get that effect for you. For the wood, I feel like for the HPL, which is
the light-colored wood that’s underneath the awnings, that one can be detailed with the awning that you’ve
selected, so that the black edges are not so visible. But everywhere else that you have a trellis, I think that
detail is actually really crucial. Because what you have right now in that area of the shopping center that’s
really nice is you have a lot of relief. You’ve got the arches that are providing this depth, and then you
have these gigantic awnings that are super cozy, you know, they have this breath of space and relief. And
the design that we’re looking at today takes away a lot of that. There’s a lot of flat planes, and I see that
you’re attempting to get… The things that are giving you the relief are the wood trellis and your concrete
at the Cocola’s, you know, your concrete pilasters. But if those things aren’t detailed right, you’re going to
just get a really super-flat façade that might lose a lot of the complexity and detail and coziness that’s
currently there, despite the sort of grubbiness. That’s really crucial, and I think you want that also for that
area. I feel like if we do go to subcommittee, that’s really important. I think that material for the wood
trellis and, you know, if you’re changing it to real, I understand there’s maintenance issues with that, but
there’s also an aesthetic issue with the wood that you have right now. I’m not really sold on that material
right now. Also, with the patterning of Schaub’s, I really like the design concept for that. I do agree that
maybe that scale is too small. I’m not sure if what you have right now is the right scale. It might be too
large. I think you’re right; the mock-up will definitely make that real. But I do, what I think is important
about that is that granularity that kind of gives it that sort of human scale that makes it really nice to
interact with on the ground. So, I appreciate the design intent for that. Those were kind of my two main
items. Oh, and I’m not sure how the rest of the Board feels about this. I’m a little concerned about Schaub’s
just being really quite dark. I don’t know if there’s enough contrast to make it seem lighter. I’m a little
worried that the color scheme is too dark for the area. I’ll just put that out there. I don’t know if it’s a deal-
breaker for me, but it does give me worry. Even right now, looking at the elevations, the signage is really
muddy. It’s a little hard to see. There’s no saying that that wouldn’t also happen in real life, when you
actually build this, you know, if you’re using a dark lettering on something that’s kind of black. I wonder if
there needs to be a bit more contrast with the Schaub palette. Okay. I’ll leave it there. Oh, sorry, one more
thing. The contrast of wood color. In the Cocola Bakery, you have the lighter-color wood, which I think
makes sense for that palette. I notice that in the Sigona's palette, you’re using that wood, and the dark
wood. You’re using dark wood on the wall, and then, the light wood underneath. They touch. There’s kind
of that place where the Sigona's sign comes down. I don’t know that that’s the best use of that. I don’t
know. It might be worth rethinking. But that might change if you change the wood slat design. Anyway,
that’s all. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you, Osma. I confess, my first thought about this whole project was, “Gee, this
plaza really does look a little bit run down.” I hand it to you guys for taking the initiative to improve it. It
never really crossed my mind before. I’ve been through it a hundred times and it’s a wonderful space. But
sitting there, the tree grates are a hazard, the buildings do look tired, so it’s great that you’re wanting to
do something. I’d like to call my colleagues’ attention to the fact that, it seems to me that the bicycle racks
are a great idea, and we really ought to have more than just three additional bike storages. Is that what
you’re proposing, Sam, is that they add three spaces on the right-hand side?
Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, it’s just three on the right-hand side.
4.a
Packet Pg. 66
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Chair Baltay: It seems to me that this is a time where we might get a substantially bigger amount of bike
storage, if possible.
Board Member Lew: Three racks mean six spaces.
Mr. Gutierrez: Correct.
Chair Baltay: Six spaces?
Mr. Gutierrez: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Okay. That’s better.
Mr. Gutierrez: A bike is on each side of each rack.
Chair Baltay: Okay. And Pacific Catch, how many will be on that side, in front of their restaurant?
Mr. Gutierrez: I believe there’s at least six, maybe nine. There’s a detail of it in the plan. One moment.
Board Member Lew: It’s on the plans.
Chair Baltay: I think I saw two racks of six on the plans, to the left of Pacific Catch as you’re facing it.
Mr. Gutierrez: There’s 10.
Chair Baltay: Ten there, okay.
Mr. Gutierrez: On Sheet A-601. That would be capacity for 20 bikes.
Chair Baltay: That makes me feel better then. Okay. I misread that thing. It seems to me that the bicycle
parking is important. This is a really critical entrance, so I’d like to see us address that. My other thought
looking at this, I generally agree with what everybody said, but coming back to David’s concerns about the
pedestrian circulation, is that I think the planters in front of Schaub’s, at the corner there, maybe they’re a
nice design idea, but I think they impede on the circulation. And probably they’re also just really making it
more difficult for the market to operate. They always seem to have carts of melons and things like that
there. It seems to me we’d be better without any planters whatsoever there. And perhaps in front of
Schaub’s, too, where they just have very small, sort of fussy-looking planters. The plaza is full of trees as
it is, and it’s such a bustling area. I’d like to hear my colleagues… Perhaps we don’t need those planters at
all. Those are my two thoughts. I do agree with Osma’s comments about the use of the wood laminate.
It’s probably not the right material because it is very one-dimensional. She made some very clever points
about the relief and why that plaza has such a character to it. I think it would be wise to reconsider that.
Counter to Osma’s comment about the dark frame, I rather like it, actually, Osma. I found that most of the
colors in this proposal seem a little bit muted and sort of flat and restrained, and that dark frame with the
interesting graphic pattern in front of it, I think is going to be dramatic. And a little bit of drama, I think, is
a good thing here. It is dark, but I’m sort of enjoying the way it looks, at least in the renderings. Do my
colleagues have any additional comments, responding to each other, or anything else?
Board Member Lew: I did want to follow up on the wood slats, the faux wood slats. I would point to a
project at Stanford. There’s the Mayfield housing on California Avenue, there’s two multifamily buildings
there. And right at the entrance, there is a wood laminate slat entry system there. I think you’re right. The
end grain is the giveaway, and that’s the weakness of the material. In this case, I think they’re using fairly
small elements, and they’re high up, so I’m not quite as worried about it as if it were really right at the
entry, like an entry door. I think the other issue that’s come up before, though, here in downtown, is a lot
of times the building department won’t allow the wood, like, real wood, because it’s combustible. There
are code issues with use of wood. And I think the Board has brought up many times before, that natural
4.a
Packet Pg. 67
City of Palo Alto Page 13
wood is really high-maintenance, like, too high-maintenance, I would argue, for a commercial application.
I don’t necessarily support changing the material, but I do understand the concern about the detailing with
that. I think it does help that, in this location, that they are high up and they’re not at high level. And I
think, Peter, you comment about the planters, I think I can go either way. I think I would just argue on
the planting palette, that I think it’s going to be tricky. They’re in shade. I think it might be tricky to do a
native planting palette there, in planters. And I think, like, former board member Furth had been pushing
for native planting at Pacific Catch, and I didn’t necessarily agree with that. I think we should just try to
get wildlife-friendly planting. I think you can pick, you can pick plants carefully. I think in this location it’s
going to be harder, trickier than at Pacific Catch, just because you’re trying to do dry shade as… There are
much fewer plants option than if it were in the sun. Anyway, I can recommend approval today. I’m happy,
if you guys want more details, to come back. I think I’m fine with that.
Chair Baltay: David, any other ideas?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I noticed when Sigona's turns the corner there, that there’s this area at the top
of the window that’s recessed, and it’s in sort of a light panel, and it ends before the glass ending there.
Sort of ends with a curve up to it. I notice you’re bringing all of the slats down over that area, so you’re
going to be covering it, and it is doing to be painted a darker, or whatever, treated a little differently. But
what exactly is happening at the window line there? It really ought to continue all the way across. Will you
be carrying the fascia piece that’s set back all the way across that window?
Mr. Woods: It’s an existing window. It actually rolls that corner.
Board Member Hirsch: Oh, no, I’m not talking about the corner itself. I’m talking about the other end of
that, the left-hand end.
[Applicant looking through documents]
Mr. Gutierrez: Sheet 901?
Mr. Woods: Yeah, it’s a different stucco tone.
Board Member Hirsch: Piece of sheet metal. Right, exactly. Some piece of, sheet metal piece that goes…
It just doesn’t go continuously to the… If you look at your rendering on A-901, it doesn’t go above the man
who is walking with the bags, above his head. It just doesn’t go all the way over to that wall. It ends with,
sort of in front of a piece of glass that comes up.
Mr. Woods: That might be a modeling flaw in our rendering. I’ll check into that, though, for sure.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Okay. But I appreciate the fact that you’re bringing that trellis, the… What do
you call it? The wood frame pieces all the way down. And I really want to compliment you on not letting
the top of the building just be yet another wasted piece of whatever, visually, and that you carry that all
the way through. Because that scale is kind of critical to the way in which you treat the facades. I want to
represent that, although I agree with Osma about some of the color treatment of it could be lightened up
a bit, you know, that on the other hand, I think the overall palette is pretty good. And the fact that you’ve
considered those parapet areas up high a part of the design here. And it sets that corner so that it makes
a nice transition, in particular on A-901, where you’re now looking at the historic façade treatment further
up, and make a neutral, you keep that neutral on the way to getting to that piece of work that’s on the
wall, which is so much fun for the entry there. I just wanted to bring that particular detail to your mind
because carrying the wood slats down is a good idea, but what if the piece you’re covering doesn’t extend
all the way? Take a look at that, please. Again, just my concern, really, somehow ended up in the way in
which the plaza flows, more than the facades, which I think are well done.
Chair Baltay: I’d like to bring us to two issues I think we want to be sure and address. The circulation you’re
talking about, David. If we all look at rendering A-901, that’s the corner of Sigona's, I think we should ask
4.a
Packet Pg. 68
City of Palo Alto Page 14
ourselves whether those planters really are appropriate at all at that location. It seems to me that they’re
impeding the circulation of the pathway past it, and they also block the storefront for the merchant. I’d like
to hear everybody’s opinion on that. Alex already addressed it. And I’d also like to hear what the applicant
thinks. Are those planters something you put in because you think they’re necessary, or because you really
want them there? Why don’t we do the Board first. Osma, what do you think about them?
Ms. Gerhardt: If we can also take a look at the site plan, which is A-102, because we do have, in front of
Sigona's, there is sort of a… I don’t know if it’s a rectangle or triangle shape, but there is a lease area for
the outdoor market. The use of that area extends beyond the façade. Maybe the applicant can better
explain that.
Chair Baltay: Jodie, you’re saying on A-102, the shaded blue area is the lease area in front of Sigona's?
Ms. Gerhardt: No. The blue area is just the canopy. There’s a line further than that.
Chair Baltay: Oh, I see. That’s the… Okay. And our concern is that the lease area restricts the traffic too
much? I’ve heard you several times bring that up.
Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t know that it’s too much, but it definitely does restrict traffic. What I’m thinking is
outside of that… I mean, there’s sort of an outdoor market that goes with Sigona's, so I’m thinking that
the eight feet would be around the outdoor market.
Mr. Smith: That is correct, an eight-foot clearance would be maintained around that market area, once
they put out their goods and their carts.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I think some of the confusion is that they frequently seem to exceed their lease area,
and it’s all quaint and beautiful, European vegetable market, but it does get into the way of walking past
it.
Ms. Gerhardt: Potentially, that’s something that we can, you know, the hardscape is being redone, so
maybe there can be some markers put into that hardscape about, to delineate that space. Maybe it’s just
small corner markers, or something of that nature.
Chair Baltay: It seems like a reasonable idea. Okay, so, we’re discussing the issues of the circulation going
through and around that corner and such. Osma, what did you think?
Vice Chair Thompson: I actually like the planters where they are. Sorry to disagree. I think, again, this is a
cozy, it’s a cozy spot, and the change in the facades is going to make it less cozy. That’s just the reality of
it. Adding more green and… I think it’s worthwhile. I think it will enhance the area. I don’t think it will take
away.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Did you want to add something on that, David?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, no, I think the planters are useful because they create a little separation
between the base, which is really rather boring, and the window display, which is always fascinating there
with that store. I think it’s a softening of the corner, and I think in a way, it kind of leads to, when you’re
looking down here, because there’s no other planters in the middle here, leads to coming to an area of
nature around the corner. And I think it just softens the corner at the base. It’s an interesting window
return with that curve happening at that point. And I’m happy to see that the chamfered wall is removed,
and I think you need something in its place, so I’m okay with the planters. It gets kind of tight with Cocola’s
across the way, at that point, and there’s no drawing that shows what Cocola’s, when they put their
furniture out there. Once again, if their furniture is way out, it’s going to create a tighter junction. I think
maybe the shopping center should consider how to hold them back a little bit with their seating in order to
make that a comfortable corner for pedestrians. But just to reflect on that, I do like the planters. I think
they serve a useful purpose at that corner.
4.a
Packet Pg. 69
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Chair Baltay: I had offered the applicant a chance to address the same question, though it seems that the
planters are going to stay. Any thoughts additional to that, or are we…?
Mr. Woods: Just a quick history. I mean, we weren’t doing the hardscape at first, and that chamfer that
came down was, again, decaying. When you remove it, it was bare underneath there, so we were going
to put in a built-in planter. And then, it became a bit of an issue, tying that into some of the older structure,
and we went with just, you know, loose planters.
Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Woods: We like the idea, the same way. The wall came down, it broke down the mass a little bit and
added a bit more green.
Mr. Smith: And as far as the seating is concerned along the bakery there, I think currently they have a
couple four-tops out there, which really kind of restricts the amount of space that comes out form that
wall. And they would still maintain that area, but we would keep an eight-foot clear, and we can identify
that in the drawing set. If that’s what we’re looking for.
Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Is the Board in consensus of perhaps requesting some sort of paving pattern
or some other detailing to reflect the leasehold area for the market, for Sigona's, as Jodie mentioned might
be a good idea? And does the applicant, again, is that something you can support?
Mr. Woods: I would think since it’s all new concrete, we could pour in a potential lease line, like a constraint
for them. That shouldn’t be an issue. An impressed line. Not a trip hazard.
Mr. Smith: Provide some markers.
Mr. Woods: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: And to the Board, though, is that something should be done? I mean, this is a legal definition.
Sometimes maybe the overreach by Sigona's adds to the coziness, right?
Vice Chair Thompson: I would be in support of that if it was done artfully. I’m a little nervous about just
saying throw anything out there. But the floor pattern paving is a great opportunity for something really
awesome, and right now, there is something really interesting down there, you know, with how the trees
are kind of framed. I’m actually all for enhancing the floor pattern paving if it serves dual purposes. That
would be good.
Board Member Lew: The plans say that the existing paving is to remain, so I think we have a discrepancy
here.
Board Member Hirsch: You know, I just, I mean, the question I think is really, can the shopping center
enforce the line in some way? I think it’s an area that is for everybody’s use. It’s a public area, and as such,
it really shouldn’t have specific markers in it like that because it changes the impact of the whole thing. In
the evening, when they take those things down, late-night shopping would still continue. I’m not quite sure
about the timing of when they bring their fruit and vegetables in, in the market there, but unless it’s
designated to them and they maintain something out there all the time, I think it should be something that
the shopping center enforces. This is the line, you know? My feeling is I wouldn’t want to see a separate
marker.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. I wonder if we could get some clarification as to the extent of the pavement
replacement from the applicant. There’s some confusion up here, at least.
Mr. Woods: Page 103, A-103?
4.a
Packet Pg. 70
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Chair Baltay: Yes. That light red [inaudible] area with the heavy red dash line around it. Is that…?
Mr. Woods: The red dash line is the extreme limits, yes.
Chair Baltay: Everything within that red dashed area is new pavement.
Mr. Woods: Yes, correct.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I think that’s what we’ve been assuming, so it’s good to have that out there.
Vice Chair Thompson: And is the new pavement the square pattern that we’re looking at?
Mr. Woods: That is the score line pattern that you see, yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. What we’re discussing is potentially changing that score pattern, or the design
down here?
Mr. Woods: I think for a particular tenant – and I’ll just speak; I’m not a landlord, but I’ve been in the retail
environment for quite a bit – is if you do something special, like, too special, and that tenant becomes
something different, then you end up with something maybe unintended for a fashion tenant, or somebody
down the road. Do you know what I’m saying? I think we can discreetly put some markers in there that,
like, define an area. There’s a collaboration with the tenant. They’ll know when they’re breaching that line,
or not.
Chair Baltay: What I’ve heard is David was not in favor of a permanent marker; Osma, only so if it was
done artfully. Alex, did you have…?
Board Member Lew: I don’t have a preference.
Chair Baltay: And I don’t have a preference. To me, that’s an individual owner’s decision as to how they
want to enforce it. I think it’s a good idea, Jodie, but it is permanent. This is concrete.
Mr. Woods: If I could add just a little bit. I mean, the amount of product this tenant brings out there, that’s
your texture, that’s your defining line. That really reads very different, right? I think that helps. We’ll be
basically doing an alternate material and covering it.
Chair Baltay: Staff is hopeful that clearer delineation will result in better enforcement.
Mr. Woods: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Which is her goal.
Mr. Woods: I agree.
Mr. Woods: And it is justifiably an issue. It’s a cozy plaza, but there’s a lot of people walking through it.
That’s what all our hesitation and hemming and hawing is about. But what I’ve heard from the Board is
that we really need to see the details of the landscaping come back, perhaps on consent calendar. Let’s
address the other issue Osma brought up, which was – and David, as well – some of the detailing of the
buildings, the wood slats and the trellises and stuff. Is that something the applicant would feel comfortable
putting together more details and reconsidering the wood slats, and coming back on a consent or
subcommittee?
Mr. Woods: Absolutely, yes. If I could say, the horizontal slats, that’s exactly the reasons, for being
combustible. That simple detailing between, that dark line goes away over height, but it’s how you treat
4.a
Packet Pg. 71
City of Palo Alto Page 17
that exterior edge that makes it look like it still has a real thickness, like real wood. The façade work, we’ll
look at that again for you and define it a little clearer. We agree with you for there. It has to look authentic.
Chair Baltay: We have tremendous regard for your capacity, but would like to see some evidence that that’s
going to look correct. I think that’s fair to say. Nobody is saying it should be natural wood, perhaps.
MOTION
Chair Baltay: Okay, with those two, are we ready for a motion, then? Who wants to give it a stab?
Ms. Gerhardt: I can summarize, if need be.
Chair Baltay: Why don’t you do that, Jodie, please.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. What I was hearing is that we’d like to see, on the eight-foot clear for pedestrians,
that there would be a walkway in front of Pacific Catch, and that there would also be a walkway in front of
Sigona's and Schaub’s, sort of going that way. There would be two different eight-foot clear pathways.
Potentially, some corner markers, so that we know how far out the Sigona's Market should be, but we’ll
kind of test out…
Chair Baltay: Extremely discreet.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Yes. I’m thinking the surveyor, little dots, really. And then, we had some conversation
about the wood slats. We’d like some additional details about how those end pieces are going to look, you
know, if there’s maybe a different material. We’ll look into that detail. Bike racks. It sounds like we have
sufficient bike racks, but we don’t have the details for those. I think the shopping center has a standard,
so that will be a quick fix. The landscaping, we need all that goes with the landscaping plan. The bollard
details, we need those, and potentially any photometrics that come with that. Yeah, related to the landscape
plan, we understand that, given it’s a shaded area, maybe it’s not going to be fully native, but we’ll do
wildlife-friendly planting. The darker trim, it sounds like there wasn’t consensus on that, so maybe we’ll
leave the darker trim for Schaub’s alone. There was a question about the sconces being nine feet, that
maybe that was too low, so I don’t know if we want to include some further review about the scones. And,
Board Member Hirsch had conversations about the uplighting in the tree grates, that kind of area. I don’t
know if we need to look at that further. That was it.
Chair Baltay: Who wants to make a motion? Let’s get this done.
Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we approve the project, with… Let’s see, we’ve got Jodie’s
six… You listed nine potential items, so I would… I think my motion is to include the first six.
Ms. Gerhardt: So, circulation…
Board Member Lew: Circulation…
Ms. Gerhardt: …markers…
Board Member Lew: … the corner marker, review…
Ms. Gerhardt: Wood slats.
Board Member Lew: I’d say consider the wood slat detailing. And you say that it’s the, it’s a faux wood slat
detailing, right? Bike rack cut sheet; submit the landscape plan, bollards, cut sheets, and photometric. With
regard to item 7, the dark color, which is number 12, I would suggest that the Board, if the Board has
concerns about that, that the subcommittee could review it on site, like, the pattern of the stenciling, but
also the color of number 12. You could review that on site if you want. The sconce height seems normal
4.a
Packet Pg. 72
City of Palo Alto Page 18
to me. I think that’s fairly typical. And then, the uplight, the existing tree up-lights, I think that there is,
there isn’t a cut sheet in the packet, but I think the applicant is saying that those are being refurbished,
and we can just put that in as noted. That those are just existing fixtures that are going to be reworked. I
think the motion is just for the first six items.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so moved. Anyone want to second that?
Vice Chair Thompson: I have a question. Is paint 12 also part of the review in subcommittee?
Board Member Lew: I haven’t included it. I’m throwing it out to you. Because that’s your… It depends on
how you want to do it.
Chair Baltay: Let’s get the motion seconded, and then we can make amendments.
Board Member Lew: You can amend it.
Chair Baltay: I will second that motion. Does anyone want to make an amendment. Why don’t you try?
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Could I make an amendment, that we review paint 12, and… Sorry, this is a
quick question of the applicant. The coloring is paint 12 over paint 2, correct? Maybe just a bit more
detailing on Schaub’s.
Board Member Lew: I’ll accept the amendment.
Chair Baltay: Okay, that’s fine with me as well, so, we’re going to add a seventh item, which is regarding
having the portal frame color and the patterning come back to the subcommittee as well.
Board Member Hirsch: I would like to add to the amendment the uplighting in the planters because it’s
more than just uplighting. There are electrical boxes. They’re quite large and interrupt…
Chair Baltay: Let’s be specific, though, David. What are we asking them to do in that amendment?
Board Member Hirsch: Well, exactly Jodie’s, one of Jodie’s lists. I’d like to keep it in.
Chair Baltay: What are asking them to do regarding the uplighting?
Board Member Hirsch: I’m sorry?
Chair Baltay: What are asking them to do regarding the uplighting that’s existing?
Board Member Hirsch: Show exactly how it interrupts or will interrupt all of the elements that are part of
the planting box.
Board Member Lew: I will accept that.
Chair Baltay: You will accept that?
Board Member Lew: To me, it’s a coordination issue. I looked at the utilities yesterday. I saw them, and I
thought about… I mean, I considered that in the tree grates and stuff. And I think that’s just part of being
an architect and working with a contractor. I don’t really know that the Board can… I don’t really know
what the Board can do about that. Just saying that it is a concern that we have.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so, uplighting in the trees will also come back to the subcommittee, with further detail
of how that’s going to be executed.
4.a
Packet Pg. 73
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Ms. Gerhardt: Is that you seconding?
Chair Baltay: I agree with that, as well.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay.
Chair Baltay: Let’s put that on the…
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so, two friendly amendments.
Chair Baltay: Two friendly amendments. With that, are we ready to vote? All those in favor? Opposed.
Okay, the motion carries 4-0.
MOTION PASSES 4-0.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much.
Mr. Woods: Thank you very much.
Ms. Gerhardt: I’m confirming this is approved with subcommittee, correct?
Chair Baltay: To the subcommittee, yes, of course.
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Okay, why don’t we get done?
Study Session – None
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 1, 2019.
Chair Baltay: I wanted to hear from Alex, but first we have minutes from August 1st. Do we have any
comments? Otherwise, anyone willing to make a motion for us?
Board Member Lew: I will move that we approve the minutes for August 1st.
Board Member Hirsch: Second that.
Chair Baltay: Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed. Motion carries 4-0.
MOTION PASSES 4-0.
Subcommittee Items
Chair Baltay: We don’t have any subcommittee items today.
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP)
Chair Baltay: Next item is a report from Board Member Lew regarding the North Ventura Coordinated Area
Plan. I’m hoping you have something to bring to us today about that, Alex.
Board Member Lew: Yes. On August 19th, the City Council reviewed the additional services proposal from
staff, and it passed on a 4-3 vote, so it was pretty close. Additional services were for the historic component
4.a
Packet Pg. 74
City of Palo Alto Page 20
of the project, both adding to the scope, right? Council agreed to add the historic review as one of the
goals of the project, and the funding for that. Also, there was additional services for the creek, to try to
enhance the concrete channel, and making it something more wildlife and naturalistic. That was on the
19th. That same week, there was the committee meeting here at City Hall. That was not well attended by
the committee, and that was the first meeting we’ve had since May. But the meetings are going to resume,
and I think the next one is on the 21st, I think. Let me see. The 19th. Here, hold on a second, let me get
the meeting. I have the meeting date here somewhere. And then, also, on August 19th, the Council did
interview ARB candidates, and they will be voting on that next Monday.
Chair Baltay: Regarding the Ventura plan, I’m just curious if we have any more content that you can report
back to us, on what the group has been doing. I hear you saying there’s nothing.
Board Member Lew: The group has not met since May. It’s been on hold.
Board Member Hirsch: I have something to add to that. The major issue that really has come up is that
Fry’s, as being a potentially historic structure, or historic story about Palo Alto. There’s more of a push at
this point to maintain the building, and that’s a really ambiguous issue now, whether you maintain the
building or maintain the cultural idea of it in some symbolic way. Everybody has been stating that a plaque
is just not symbolic, and that something more significant has to be presented somehow in this whole project
in order for that cultural history to be maintained on the site. That’s a big open question because, of course,
there are those who are promoting keeping the whole Fry’s building, which is most of the site. And, in fact,
that raises big issues with a development concept here because, of course, Fry’s building would preclude
usefulness as a real housing site. That conflict is going to go on for quite a long time, so now, they’ve sort
of proposed that we’re talking about a 10- or 20-year period of time, between now and when anything
could happen to that site, which is quite a big issue because it’s one of the last two really remaining major
sites in the whole city that could afford significant housing. That just seems to be the major issue of the
project at this point. I mean, I think that, as it affects us in some way, it has to do with how historical
buildings or buildings that represent some historical-cultural factor for Palo Alto, how they affect the future
of Palo Alto, since we are under pressure to provide housing here. What do we do? Do we respond to that
issue ourselves in some way?
Chair Baltay: Okay, I think that’s noted to Alex, that that’s an issue. Right?
Board Member Lew: Yes. There is an issue about the founder of the cannery. And then, I think the other
thing is that the Chinese owner of that died, and then, and the cannery continued afterwards for many
years, and it expanded after that. And the building was built over time. It was not just built, you know, it’s
not just one big building. It’s a conglomeration of many buildings added over time. And then, I think the
other issue is that the NVCAP is a long-term zoning change. It’s not a short-term document. And the
boundary of the site is much larger than the Fry’s site, so there are still other possibilities that can happen
in the area to add housing. Anyway, it’s going to be… But I think David is right. It’s going to come down
to, like, no growth, people using historic, the historic issue as a wedge topic, and I think there are going
to be advocates for housing that are going to push for more housing. And that’s the Palo Alto process. And
the meeting, I did… Well, the best model is, that I think people are happy with is, is the SOFA project on
the Old Palo Alto medical clinic, and I think generally, people are happy with that project. The next meeting
tentatively is set for September 24th, here at City Hall, in the lobby conference room.
Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. I look forward to hearing further feedback on that issue. Anything else?
Okay, with that, we are adjourned. Thank you very much, everybody.
Adjournment
4.a
Packet Pg. 75
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10691)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 10/17/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
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. The Board recommended inclusion of a condition that required certain project
elements to return to the ARB subcommittee.
The application and plans dated July 23, 2019 were reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee (Board
members Baltay and Lew) on August 1, 2019 in accordance with condition of approval 2, as
stated below.
• 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.
• Rework the mesh around the stairs to make it less oppressive.
5
Packet Pg. 76
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
At the meeting, the Subcommittee agreed with the proposed five window configuration
provided that the control joint aligned with the central window, and with the proposed curved
shroud at a shorter depth than the proposed two-and-a-half feet (2.5 ft).
However, the Subcommittee requested that the applicant return with a 3D color rendering of
the proposed stair enclosure, construction details, and material sample of the proposed metal
bars around the enclosure.
The ARB Subcommittee requested that the mesh stair enclosure return prior to issuance of the
building permit.
Applicant’s Response:
• The applicant has provided a 3D color rendering of the building as well as details of the
mesh enclosure. These details are in the plan set, with images provided in summary
below.
Figure 1 – Bird’s Eye Rendering
5
Packet Pg. 77
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
Figure 2 – Close Up Rendering
Figure 3 – Exterior Stair Section
5
Packet Pg. 78
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the
proposed changes are sufficient or require 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:
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
5
Packet Pg. 79
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
• Attachment A: Project Plans (DOCX)
5
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment A
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/PAapprovedprojects
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
5.a
Packet Pg. 81
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10759)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 10/17/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of L'Occitane
Facade
Title: 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00114]: Subcommittee Review of a
Previously Approved Project for L'Occitane in Building C at the
Stanford Shopping Center That was Conditioned to Return
With Project Changes Related Facade Plaster Sample,
Relocation of Facade Camera, Column/Circular Planting Box
Details, and Storefront Mullion Color. Environmental
Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline
Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial
District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner
Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org.
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 August 23, 2019, 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:
3. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Planning and Community Environment:
6
Packet Pg. 82
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
a. Relocation of the camera on the exterior façade.
b. Provide a finished plaster sample with the proposed yellow paint for the upper
façade.
c. Show an alternative design for the circular planter that increases the soil volume
for a more viable environment to allow the proposed plants to thrive.
d. Provide a storefront mullion material sample.
Applicant’s Response:
• The updated plans note the removal of the façade camera. This camera was found to be
redundant will not be replaced on the subject façade.
• The applicant provided material samples for the façade plaster and the storefront
mullions and updated the plans accordingly.
• The revised plans include a larger planter box (8” width, 6” depth) around the exterior
column.
A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online:
http://bit.ly/LOCCITANEARBVIDEO. The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and
the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or require further refinement.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Samuel Gutierrez, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575
samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Applicant Response Letter (PDF)
• Attachment B: Project Plans (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
6
Packet Pg. 83
TO: City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
FROM: Sargenti
Simone Short – Project Manager
461 From Road, 2nd Floor
Paramus, NJ 07652
RE: L’Occitane En Provence: Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto, CA
ARB Submission - Revisions
October 3, 2019
Below please find itemized list to tenant work plan review comment responses for L’Occitane
at Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto, CA.
Architectural Review Board Comments
Item #1 - Provide plaster sample ( directional sample was lost/missed placed
Response: Sample provided
Item #2 - Provide storefront mullion sample
Response: Sample provided & Included on updated digital sample board,
see updated SMP100
Item #3 - Remove shopping center camera from building elevation
Response: Shopping Center Camera removed from storefront, see updated
A103
Item #4 - Enlarge the planter area at the new seating/Exterior column.
Response: Planter area enlarged at the new seating/exterior column, see
updated A102.
If there are any questions please contact the Project Manager, Simone Short by
email sshort@sargarch.com or by phone (973) 859-9321.
Sincerely,
Robert Sargenti, AIA
6.a
Packet Pg. 84
ATTACHMENT B
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 “180 El Camino Real, L’Occitane” 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=4639&TargetID=319
6.b
Packet Pg. 85