HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-05 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: December 5, 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. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]:
Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural
Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's
Building Located in the Stanford Shopping Center and the Construction of (1) a Retail
Building, Approximately 43,500 sf, (2) two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 sf
each, and (3) a Retail Building, Approximately 28,000 sf (78,500 sf in total).
Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302
(Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For
More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at
Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org.
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Study Session/Preliminary Review
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3. Receive an Introduction on the Objective Standards Project and Provide Feedback to
Staff
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2019.
5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 2019.
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
6. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) - Boardmember Lew
Adjournment
Subcommittee Items
Vice Chair Thompson and Boardmember Lew
7. 2342 Yale Street [18PLN-00224]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved
Architectural Review Application That was Conditioned to Return With Project
Changes Related to Materials, Trash Enclosure, Bike Locker and Related Lighting and
Circulation. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of CEQA in
Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RMD
(NP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at
emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org
8. 250 Sherman [17PLN-00256]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project
That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to the Tower Design
for the Public Safety Building. Environmental Assessment: Certified Environmental
Impact Report. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact
Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes 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 # 10895)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/5/2019
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
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 Cancelled
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
11/7 – Lew/
Hirsch
12/5 – Lew/
Thompson
*Chair Furth’s last hearing was July 18, 2019. Grace Lee’s first hearing was October 3, 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
December 19, 2019
• 702 Clara Drive: Three Detached Units (3rd Formal)
• 250 Hamilton Ave: Bus Shelters
• 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Rd: Mercedes/Audi Dealership
1.b
Packet Pg. 7
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10760)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/5/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Macy's Mens Redevelopment (3rd Formal)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-
00110]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval
of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the
Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Building Located in
the Stanford Shopping Center and the Construction of (1) a
Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 sf, (2) two Retail
Buildings, Approximately 3,500 sf each, and (3) a Retail
Building, Approximately 28,000 sf (78,500 sf in total).
Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance
With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or
Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial).
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. Recommend approval of the proposed project “Option 2” to the Director of Planning
and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Report Summary
The ARB reviewed the subject project during two previous public hearings, then continued its
review to a third hearing. The Municipal Code encourages the Director of Planning and
Development Services to issue decisions on Architectural Review applications after the third
public hearing.
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
Earlier staff reports include background information and project analysis reflecting the project’s
conformance to Palo Alto’s development regulations and policies. These reports are available to
view online via the weblinks below:
• Hearing Date: June 20, 2019, bit.ly/180ECRMACYS
• Hearing Date: October 3, 2019, bit.ly/MACYS2NDARB
The purpose of this report is to restate the ARB’s comments and present the applicant’s
response to those comments. The report’s analysis section builds upon the information
contained in earlier reports, and reflects recent project changes. The ARB is encouraged to
make a final recommendation to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project.
Background
On October 3, 2019, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the public hearing is
available online: [bit.ly/180ECRMMV2] and the ARB’s comments and the applicant’s responses
are summarized below:
ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response
The El Camino Real façade of Wilkes Bashford
(WB) has been improved, however the other
three elevations should be revised/studied to
break down the scale with more articulation of
mass. The scale of the bricks should be further
studied to see how this material can be used
to provide greater relief.
The WB elevations now include more
articulation in massing (Sheets A-WB1 - A-
WB13).
The brick has been revised (Sheets A-WB4 -
A-WB13 and material sample provided for
review).
The El Camino Real sidewalk should be pulled
away from the street. The oaks at the corner
of El Camino Real and Pistache Place need to
be preserved.
The El Camino Real sidewalk design is
revised so it is now pulled back from the
street (Sheet A-WB-1). The Wilkes Bashford
building is now further setback from El
Camino Real (36 feet) to preserve the
corner oak trees. An updated arborist
report is included in Attachment E.
Identify locations for a majority of the 229
trees replacement trees
The applicant is currently working with City
Staff to identify planting locations
throughout the Shopping Center for
replacement of trees, with the remaining
balance of trees to be addressed via the in-
lieu fees to the Urban Forestry tree
replacement fund. Staff is recommending
this be further reviewed by the
Subcommittee
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary application is being
requested and subject to ARB purview:
• Architectural Review – Major (AR): This project would be subject to the criteria found
within PAMC 18.77.070. Architectural Review applications are reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board whose recommendations are then forwarded to the
Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the
Board’s recommendation. Actions by the Director are appealable to the City Council if
filed within 14 days of the decision. Architectural Review projects are evaluated against
specific findings which must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure
to make any one finding requires a project to be redesigned or to be denied.
Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary application is being
requested and is not subject to ARB purview:
• Variance: Variance is required for this application and its requirement for 12-foot
sidewalk width required along El Camino Real frontage per PAMC 183.16.060(a)(8). The
process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.030 and
18.77.050. The director shall prepare a proposed written decision. Any party, including
the applicant, may request a hearing of the planning and transportation commission
(PTC) on the proposed director’s decision by filing a written request. Within 45 days
following the filing of a timely hearing request of a proposed director’s decision the PTC
shall hold a hearing on the application. The recommendation of the PTC shall be placed
on the consent calendar of the Council within 45 days. The decision of the Council is
final.
o The purpose of a variance is to: (1) provide a way for a site with special physical
constraints, resulting from natural or built features, to be used in ways similar to
other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district; and (2) provide a way to grant
relief when strict application of the zoning regulations would subject
development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical
difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and
zoning district.
Analysis1
The ARB reviewed this project at two prior hearings. The ARB found the proposed Restoration
Hardware building, building EE, drive aisle, and other site plan details surrounding those
buildings would meet ARB approval findings. However, the site plan and Wilkes Bashford
building design was viewed as not yet meeting ARB approval findings. The ARB commented on
1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony
may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action
from the recommendation in this report.
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
issues with El Camino Real right of way improvements. The ARB feedback resulted in project
revisions.
The applicant has included the following changes in updated plans, providing two options in
two different plan sets for ARB review. The plan set for Option 2 includes the Wilkes Bashford
Building (WB). The other plan set, Option 1, provides only a building pad as a placeholder for a
future application for the WB building.
Option 1 Plans:
Option 1 is a plan set for the proposed project and a pad for future retail. A building pad will be
provided for the construction of a future Wilkes Bashford retail building. This pad mirrors the
site plan of Option 2, including the location of landscaping, utilities equipment, and a design of
the surrounding parking lot and pedestrian walkways. The pad option, if recommended for
approval by the ARB, would be the future site of the Wilkes Bashford building. The WB building
design would be submitted with a separate Architectural Review application for a separate
public hearing review. The Option 1 site plan does account for El Camino Real sidewalk
improvements and adjustments to preserve the corner oak trees located at Pistache Place and
El Camino Real.
Staff is not recommending this Option. However, if the ARB finds they cannot approve Option
2, the applicant requests approval of Option 1.
Option 2 Plans:
The plan set for the proposed project includes the Wilkes Bashford (WB) building, which has
three revised elevations. The applicant studied the interior façade and parking lot facing
façades following the ARB’s direction to change the type of façade brick and improve
articulation and massing. Sheet A-WB-1 to A-WB-13 detail the changes. When comparing the
proposed floor plan from the previous hearing and the current floor plan, the viewer is able to
see notable changes in the building massing.
The building revisions increase the total proposed FAR to 29,117 sf (an increase of 26 sf)
including the proposed mezzanine (main retail floor at 22,507 sf, mezzanine at 6,610 sf). The
perspective renderings show massing and articulation changes. The applicant has provided a
brick material sample to explain the type of relief this material will provide.
The building’s overall design is modern, with a raised central inlet that frames the building
entry. The design includes increased glazing on each façade, limestone, textured brick (revised),
warm colored stucco, champagne tinted metals, and wood materials. The building design
retains the proposed living walls located on the East facing façade. This provides additional
greenery to the building while complementing the site and project landscaping. Lastly, the
western façade will greet pedestrians walking from the shopping center; the large central
building entrance would be anchored by two large corner display windows. The visual
connection is strengthened by site improvements; trees, refined hardscape finishes, and ample
amenities will provide a comfortable walk from the primary center to the Wilkes Bashford
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
building. The proposed building massing and material changes appear to address the ARB
members’ comments.
Previous Floor Plan
Current Floor Plan
The project includes installing crosswalks at the interior facing corners of Wilkes Bashford for
pedestrians crossing Shopping Center Way and Pistache Place. These crosswalks (see brown
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
highlighted crosswalks on Sheet G1.2) towards building J and building EE will be a table-topped,
similar to the proposed elevated drive aisle crosswalk between Restoration Hardware and
building EE. This type of crosswalk is intended to encourage pedestrian activity, reduce vehicle
speeds, and enhance the pedestrian environment of the Shopping Center; staff supports this
design. These improvements will contribute to the site’s pedestrian environment and act as
physical connections from the greater Shopping Center to the proposed Wilkes Bashford
building.
The construction of the Wilkes Bashford building will include widening the sidewalks along El
Camino Real between Sand Hill Road and Pistache Place. The project will meet the
requirements described in the arborist report for protection of existing trees in this area
(detailed further below). Municipal Code section 18.16.060(a)(8) requires a 12-foot effective
width sidewalk along El Camino Real. However, the existing mature oak trees cannot tolerate
additional pavement encroaching into their tree protection zones (TPZ). This leaves only the
narrow planter strip area between the street curb and the existing sidewalk for incremental
sidewalk expansion. Figure 1 below captures the existing conditions and the limited workable
area for sidewalk improvements. Given the site is legal non-conforming for sidewalk width
which requires a 12 foot sidewalk width along EL Camino Real frontage, the project requires a
variance for the proposed improvements which will bring the project closer to compliance. The
variance is not within the ARB’s preview and is subject to meeting the required findings for a
variance and a decision by the Director of Planning & Development Services. The existing
conditions, which include mature oaks trees along El Camino Real, precludes a code compliant
sidewalk without effectively removing the oak trees which are protected by code. As such a
variance is warranted in this situation.
Figure 1
The ARB provided comments regarding the previous proposal for El Camino Real sidewalk. The
comments focused on the lack of a buffer between pedestrians and El Camino Real, suggested
widening the (proposed) sidewalk, and noted concerns regarding the potential impacts to
existing trees. The applicant re-designed El Camino Real sidewalk area, utilizing the existing
location of the sidewalk and expanding the width only towards El Camino Real while leaving a 6
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
inch planting strip (Sheet HS-WB-2). The images below provide the proposed site plan and
section view for the design of El Camino Real sidewalk.
In cross section view the expanded sidewalk provides a 7.5-foot wide sidewalk while leaving a
half foot buffer area between the back of walk and the curb. Staff supports the widening
proposal; pedestrians and bicyclists would benefit from a wider sidewalk on this limited portion
of El Camino Real.
Proposed Site Plan
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
The site plan adjusts the Wilkes Bashford Building to accommodate a greater setback from El
Camino Real to preserve the corner Oaks. The changes were done without the need to adjust
the parking lot layout. The applicant adjusted the building pad and building by reducing some of
the walkways around the proposed building. The project would result in a net loss of 165
parking spaces from construction of the Restoration Hardware and Wilkes Bashford sites.
However, the parking within the project area will be redesigned to accommodate 10 ADA and
57 electric vehicle-ready spaces. The total number of parking spaces—ADA, electric vehicle, and
otherwise-- remains unchanged from previous presentations to the ARB.
Revised Arborist Report
The revised arborist report (Attachment E) includes El Camino Real sidewalk changes in relation
to the existing trees along the walk, and preservation of the corner Oak trees. Per the ARBs
concerns, the report provides specific information for preservation of the El Camino Real oaks.
The ARB noted concern regarding the removal of three protected oaks (trees #70-73) at the
intersection of Pistache Place and El Camino Real. The report’s findings address Urban Forestry
requirements for preservation. The approval conditions further describe how construction
within the TPZ will take place to preserve the oaks. The construction methods include hand and
pneumatic excavation only when working within the TPZ.
The applicant and staff are working to find replanting locations for the required 229
replacement trees that are not already proposed in the plan set. These trees will meet the
City’s requirements for “no net loss of existing tree canopy”. The replacement trees would be
planted throughout the larger Shopping Center site as the project site area is not large enough
to accommodate the required replacement trees. The total number of replacement trees
planted on the project site will likely be a small portion of the 229 trees required to be
replanted, due to existing conditions such as the lack of open planter areas and conflicts with
underground utilities. The remaining replacement trees will be addressed by in-lieu payments
into the Urban Forestry tree replacement fund at the rate of $650 per tree. The ARB
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
subcommittee will have the opportunity to review [and recommendation changes/approval to]
the final replacement tree planting plan at a later date.
Bicycle Parking
The site is currently legal non-conforming with respect to bike parking spaces. The project
includes installation of 70 new bicycle parking spaces to supplement the existing 271 bike
spaces. This will encourage alternate modes of transportation and bring the site closer to
compliance with the Zoning Code requirement of 526 bike spaces. New and relocated short-
term bicycle racks will be placed throughout the site to address the greatest demand, as
determined by the Office of Transportation staff. Staff will review and approve the placements
in accordance with the results of a pending update to the previously conducted bicycle
transportation study. This study will begin once the air quality—which was reduced due to
fires--in the area improves, in order to capture accurate data of bicycle usage, capacity, and
need at the site. Due to this delay, staff is recommending the ARB Subcommittee review the
final locations of the short-term bicycle racks at a later date.
Environmental Review
The City has assessed the subject project in accordance with the authority and criteria
contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and
the environmental regulations of the City. The project is categorically exempt from the
provision of CEQA. The project falls under a Class 2 exemption in accordance with Guideline
Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). The project meets this exemption as it is the
replacement of existing structures and facilities where the new structures will be located on the
same site as the existing structures and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity.
More specifically, the existing Macy’s Men’s building is a commercial retail building of greater
floor area than the total proposed floor area of the new commercial retail buildings in the same
general location on the project site.
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 November 22, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred
on November 20, 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. Approve the project with option 1 only and require the Wilks Bashford building to be
submitted as a sperate application subject to ARB review.
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 10
3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 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: Location Map (PDF)
• Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)
• Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)
• Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)
• Attachment E: Revised Arborist Report (PDF)
• Attachment F: Applicant's Revised Project Description (DOCX)
• Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX)
2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 17
2.a
Packet Pg. 18
ATTACHMENT B
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
180 El Camino Real
19PLN-00110
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 would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan
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 Regional Commercial.
The project continues the Regional
Commercial land use.
Land Use and Community Design Element
POLICY B-6.3: Work with appropriate
stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford
University to ensure that the Stanford
Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive,
economically competitive and high quality
regional shopping center.
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.
This project will add to the exclusive mixture of
tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center
making it a distinctive regional shopping
center. The projects proposed new buildings
with designs that meet the approved
standards for the Shopping Center by utilizing
high quality materials, this project results in
net loss of FAR for the site and is an infill
development, resulting in a lower impact to
the surrounding area.
Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development
and redevelopment to incorporate greenery
and natural features such as green rooftops,
pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens.
The project incorporates new planter areas,
green walls, and green rooftops along with
new exterior seating areas.
The new WB building would front the El
Camino Real Corridor, while retaining existing
oak trees. The design includes store display
areas and new planter areas that would
Policy L-4.3: Encourage street frontages that
contribute to retail vitality in all Centers.
Reinforce street corners in a way that
enhances the pedestrian realm or that form
2.b
Packet Pg. 19
corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. enhance the Pistache Place and El Camino Real
Corner and define this intersection.
Policy L-4.4: Ensure all Regional Centers and
Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide
centrally located gathering spaces that
create a sense of identity and encourage
economic revitalization. Encourage public
amenities such as benches, street trees,
kiosks, restrooms and public art.
The project will enhance a portion of the
Shopping Center through redevelopment
which includes new outdoor seating areas, a
green roof top accessible to the public, and
expanded walking path areas for pedestrians.
Policy L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping
Center as one of the Bay Area’s premier
regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle
and pedestrian use and encourage any new
development at the Center to occur through
infill.
The project improves the northern portion of
the El Camino Real frontage with a new high-
quality retail building and new landscaping,
pedestrian and bicycle improvements,
increasing the quality of the site. Additionally,
the inset buildings have designs of high
quality; one building features a green roof
with a glass enclosed restaurant, a unique
feature that will continue to promote the
Stanford Shopping Center as a premier
modern shopping center.
Program L4.9.1: While preserving adequate
parking to meet demand, identify strategies
to reuse surface parking lots.
Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create
Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance
City Streets and Public Spaces.
The project results in a net decrease of FAR.
The project includes a requirement for a
parking management plan for the site’s
employees to focus employee parking areas
underutilized by patrons of the Shopping
Center. The project includes an option for an
elevated drive aisle between buildings EE and
Restoration Hardware, which could be utilized
for minor events.
The building and site design enhance the
Stanford Shopping Centers open pedestrian
environment and access to the site overall.
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character
of the City. Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due their
size and scale.
The proposed changes to the site with this
project are consistent with the size and scale
of the Shopping Center overall, as the site has
several multi-story and single-story buildings
throughout.
Policy T-1.16 Promote personal
transportation vehicles an alternative to cars
(e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to
get to work, school, shopping, recreational
facilities and transit stops.
The project will add new bicycle facilities on-
site bring the site into conformance in terms of
short-term bicycle parking (public use) and
further into conformance in terms of long-
term bicycle parking (lockers). This is
2.b
Packet Pg. 20
Policy T-1.19 Provide facilities that encourage
and support bicycling and walking.
Program T3.10.3 Provide safe, convenient
pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections
between the Stanford Shopping
Center/Medical Center areas and housing
along the Sand Hill Road/Quarry Road
corridors to Palo Alto Transit Center,
Downtown Palo Alto and other primary
destinations.
Program T5.12.1 Work with employers,
merchants, schools and community service
providers, to identify ways to provide more
bicycle parking, including e-bike parking with
charging stations, near existing shops,
services and places of employment.
consistent with the goals of the 2012 Palo Alto
Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan; it will
improve the bicycle parking capacity of the site
and incentivize the use of bicycles as a mode of
transportation to the site. Furthermore, a
bicycle occupancy study is being conducted to
properly locate new bicycle parking in
locations throughout the Shopping Center
where demand is highest. This will provide
more convenience and capacity, as the
Shopping Center is in an area of high
employment given the proximity of the
Medical Center and Stanford University.
The project would remain consistent with the zoning requirements and Master Façade and Sign
program for the Stanford Shopping Center. The project will not increase the development area
of the site regarding height, floor area ratio (net loss of FAR), and setbacks. Parking space
numbers overall for the site will be reduced, but the parking count will remain code compliant
with the required parking ratio of one space per 275 gross sf of floor area. Additionally, the
project will bring the site into greater compliance regarding the loading spaces on site and the
overall bicycle parking spaces provided on-site.
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’s new buildings and site improvements will enhance the pedestrian and tenant
environment within the Stanford Shopping Center.
2.b
Packet Pg. 21
Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings
are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide
additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial
district. The purposes are to encourage development in a commercial district that is responsive
to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and to promote the establishment of
pedestrian oriented design.
1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian
walkability, a bicycle-friendly environment, and
connectivity through design elements
The project will improve the conditions
along the pedestrian walkway by
rearranging the exterior seating areas for
pedestrians, widening the walkway, and
adding new bicycle racks for cyclists.
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
The project includes new planter boxes, wide
pathways and sidewalks, new pedestrian
seating, and new pedestrian scale lighting
within the project area. These new features
improve the pedestrian environment within
the project area.
3. Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and
conform to proper setbacks
The proposed project will not significantly
change the existing building massing as the
project results in a net loss of FAR (minor in
scale to the site FAR). The project will not
significantly change the setbacks as the site
has varied setback placement; the project
does conform to the required setbacks of the
site.
4. Low Density Residential Transitions
Where new projects are built abutting existing lower
scale residential development, care shall be taken to
respect the scale and privacy of neighboring
properties
This finding does not apply.
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
The project provides new publicly accessible
exterior seating areas and a unique, usable
green roof.
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
The proposed project will change the
existing circulation in the area within the
project scope and includes a new building
within an existing parking lot area. The
building massing is not overwhelming as it
includes one to three-story buildings. The
pedestrian walkways around the effected
2.b
Packet Pg. 22
parking lots and project area are wider (no
smaller than 6.5 ft in width) and include new
planters and pedestrian seating areas to
enhance the pedestrian environment of the
site.
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
This finding does not apply
8. Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability
and green building design should be incorporated into
the project
The project will utilize energy-efficient LED
lighting and will comply with Green Building
Energy codes for commercial businesses
along with construction debris diversion
rates.
Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that
are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
The project includes materials which are durable and have high-quality finishes. The new façade
will consist of cast concrete, metal, treated wood, and porcelain tiles. The design will enhance
the character of the site and update the existing conditions. The buildings will better fit with the
greater Shopping Center, which has been significantly upgraded through tenant facade
changes. This project will continue the modernization of the center’s Sand Hill Road and El
Camino Real frontages. The project will contribute to the unique mixture of textures and colors
the Shopping Center tenant façades are known for.
Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g.
convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of
open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
The project will improve circulation for vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic and access to the
project site. The modifications to the site include a new cut- through, elevated drive aisle to
maintain access and circulation for cars while increasing circulation for pedestrians with the
adjoining new pedestrian pathways. Furthermore, pedestrian walkway and sidewalk
improvements are included along El Camino Real and Pistache Place. Lastly, the project includes
bicycle parking that will feature new cargo bicycle spaces, which can better transport goods, to
encourage this form of alternate transportation.
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
2.b
Packet Pg. 23
indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be
appropriately maintained.
A large portion of the existing trees will be preserved in addition to new trees and landscaped
areas that consist of native or low to moderate water usage plants that are more easily
managed and maintained. A majority of the proposed plant species will provide suitable
habitats; they are flowering plants/trees which are suitable for wildlife.
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 will utilize energy-efficient LED lighting and will comply with green building energy
code requirements and the local construction debris diversion rates. Additionally, the proposed
landscaping includes a significant amount of native or low to moderate water usage plants along
with on-site water treatment (C3) that will reduce storm water runoff and allow water to enter
the local aquafer.
2.b
Packet Pg. 24
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
180 El Camino Real, “Macys Mens”
19PLN-00110
________________________________________________________________________
PLANNING DIVISION
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the
approved plans entitled, "Macys Mens Redevelopment,” stamped as received by the City
on November 8, 2019, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo
Alto, California, except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the
Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET: A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be
printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit.
4. 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:
a. The final location of all bicycle parking (including 70 new spaces) shall be in
conformance with the revised occupancy study, to the satisfaction of the Chief
Transportation Official, along with the final design for the cargo bicycle parking
stalls.
b. To ensure a no net loss of trees, the project shall plant 229 trees throughout the site.
The location of new trees to be planted shall be shown on a site plan or an in-lieu
payment shall be made, to the satisfaction of the Urban Forester.
5. 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.
6. EMPLOYEE PARKING MANAGEMENT: All parking facility changes shall be in conformance
with the approved plans. The applicant shall submit annual parking reports, with the first
report due one year after occupancy of the new buildings within the scope of the project.
The report to the City will include data involving the management of parking for employees
of the site and is inclusive of vehicle, bicycle parking, and utilization of carpooling or transit
2.c
Packet Pg. 25
programs. The information shall be submitted to the Office of Transportation and the
Planning and Development Services Department on a yearly basis.
7. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and
shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary.
8. PROJECT EXPIRATION: The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the
original date of approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be
made prior to expiration. The extension request shall be done by submitting a written
request directly to the Planning and Development Services Department.
9. SIGNAGE: The submitted plans only reference signage for the new buildings to show the
relationship between the buildings design and possible new signage. This approval does not
include an approval for signage. Signage will require a separate approval from the Planning
and Development Services Department.
10. 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.
11. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Given the proposed project results in a net loss of FAR, no
additional impact fees are due.
12. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with PAMC 16.61, and to the satisfaction of the
Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and
received final approval of the art plan, or pay the in-lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the
estimated construction valuation, prior to obtaining a Building permit. All required artwork
shall be installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff
prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit.
13. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides
that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other
exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the
development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after
the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project.
Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications,
reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO
INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES
DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM
CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS,
2.c
Packet Pg. 26
RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes,
assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code
Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice,
the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is
subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which
judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
14. 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, colors, parking, landscaping, and hard surface
locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at
samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
At time of building permit, please include the following information/clarifications shall be
provided:
15. Green building compliance shall comply with the CALgreen code as amended by the City of
Palo Alto and effective at time of building permit submittal, please complete the required
CALGREEN +TIER2 CHECKLIST and explain how each green measure will be implemented for
the project.
16. Accessible path of travel to all common areas, entrances, exits, restaurant, retail, and all
public functions per Chapter 11B, CBC.
17. T24 Energy calculations for envelope, lighting, mechanical, and electrical shall be provided
for each building.
18. County Health Department approval is required prior to issuance of building permit for
restaurants.
19. Structural design shall comply with CBC, ASCE7-10, and other applicable codes based on
materials specifications. New building and existing building shall have a seismic gap
required.
20. Several proposed grease interceptors are shown on sheet C8. Design shall be reviewed at
permit submittal and coordinated with Water Quality Division.
21. Mixed use and occupancy shall comply with section 508, CBC.
22. Bike parking counts shall meet CALgreen as amended by CPA.
23. Onsite pavement design shall meet the TI per soil report and PW standards.
24. Onsite storm drainage shall meet CPC, CBC, and PW standards.
2.c
Packet Pg. 27
25. Provide roof access by means of stair or ladder type.
26. Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing design shall comply with applicable codes. All onsite
sanitary lines shall have a minimum 2% slope with adequate cleanouts and backflow valves
at appropriate locations per CPC and PAMC.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
27. An additional fire hydrant is required on Pistache Place near ECR. The hydrant shall be
shown on the building permit plan set. Final location to be determine during the building
permit plan check review.
PUBLIC ART
28. The following conditions are required to be part of any Planning application approval and
shall be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit,
Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit,
Encroachment Permit, etc. as further described below. If the applicant chooses to pay in-
lieu of commissioning art on site, the funds must be paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
29. If the applicant chooses to commission art on site, then they must complete both initial and
final reviews and receive approval from the Public Art Commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
30. If the applicant chooses to pay a contribution into the Public Art fund in-lieu of
commissioning art on site, the contribution must be made prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
UTILITIES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
31. Electric utilities are in the footprint of the new Macy’s building, therefore, some of the
substructure must be completed prior to demolition of the Macy’s building. 12kV duct bank
shall be relocated, prior to occupancy at the latest.
32. Underground switch shall be relocated. Customer shall provide space 10’X10’ space for the
pad mount switch.
33. Existing underground transformer shall be relocated. Customer shall provide space 10’X10’
for the pad mount transformer for the Macy’s Building.
34. Customer shall provide 10’X10’ for the pad mount transformer for the new Building.
2.c
Packet Pg. 28
35. Where needed, the applicant/property owner shall grant the City easements for
maintenance of facilities, such as switch gear and transformers.
36. Location of new switch and new transformers must be approved by ARB.
37. The location of the customer’s switchboard shall be shown on the layout drawing.
38. All substructure work to be completed by the applicant. Fiber conduits shall be relocated.
39. A complete Utility Electric Application must be submitted, and advanced engineering fee
shall be paid.
40. Detailed comments shall be given only after field verification from City Crew on existing
Utilities and advanced engineering fee is paid.
UTILITIES WASTE GAS WATER
41. Update plans per WGW site plan red-lines dated approved June 13, 2019.
42. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection
application - loadsheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all
the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads
43. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show
the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public
right of way.
44. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show
the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public
right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains,
sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new
wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing
potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct
banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the
ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans
for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential
conflicts with sewer, water and gas.
45. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as
necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated
with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or
services.
2.c
Packet Pg. 29
46. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements
47. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is
required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water
meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free.
Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
48. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection
for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17,
sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be
installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property
line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans.
49. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility
service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services,
meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity
requesting the relocation.
50. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans.
Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection
shown on the plans.
51. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the
main per WGW utilities procedures.
52. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be
placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear
separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If
there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the
plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet
of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or
wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’
between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters.
53. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility
standards for water, gas & wastewater.
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
54. STORMDRAIN:
2.c
Packet Pg. 30
a. Drainage from the proposed structure shall not be directly connected to the City’s storm
drain system.
b. Plot and label the C3 treatment measures associated with this work to verify that no
direct connection will be required. (not applicable on privately maintained streets)
c. Plot and label a 15-foot wide easement for the proposed and existing storm drain line
within private property. Pipe shall be centered on easement.
d. If the retail building will have a basement, provide a minimum 10-foot separation
between building/foundation edge and easement edge.
e. Provide Qex versus Qprop from the project site, to verify no net increase. (provide
clarification calculations with the building permit submittal with respect to drainage
area)
f. Relocate manholes to avoid proposed trees and shall be placed within one stall.
Manhole shall not be aligned with the stall striping and for future utility clean-up, this
will reduce the number of stalls affected. Manhole shall not be placed within tree root
zone.
g. Plot and label the utility crossings invert and top of pipe.
h. Revised City specs allow the use of HDPE pipe, applicant shall review and verify why RCP
is proposed. Please note this in the plan set.
Additional comments and review provided by Storm Drain group during Building permit
review stage.
55. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street
trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’
arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he/she can determine what street tree
work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building
permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including
the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that
Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note
that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree
Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953).
56. 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
57. 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
2.c
Packet Pg. 31
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.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717
58. RETAIL SPACE: If any proposed food service is planned a grease trap will be required.
59. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The building permit 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.
60. 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.”
61. 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 coordinated to keep materials and equipment onsite.
This includes job site trailers, dumpsters, storage containers and portable restrooms.
62. Provide following note on Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall
contact Public Works Engineering Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system
(pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to
backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection, at a minimum 48-hours in advance by
calling (650)496- 6929.”
63. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Sidewalk, curb & gutter replacement shall be required for both
Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real frontage of project. Street resurfacing may also be
required for the property frontage along East bound portion of Sand Hill Rd.
64. 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
2.c
Packet Pg. 32
Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the
area on the Site Plan.
65. 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 City Public Works’ website.
66. 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 the Public Works website
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
67. LOGISTICS PLAN: The project contractor must 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
businesses, and schedule of work. Include a copy in resubmittal. Guidelines are attached at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2719
68. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to
maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a
maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the
permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement
shall be executed prior to Building permit approval. The City will inspect the treatment
measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is a C.3 plan check fee that will be
collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit.
69. Include a note on the civil set of plans that the project is subject to C.3 Storm Water
Treatment along with 3rd party review.
70. Proposed storm drain items will require new easement and/or modifications of existing
easements.
71. Coverage is required to be obtained under the State Construction General Permit for
projects that disturb one acre or more.
72. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project may be required. Caltrans right-of-
way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a
maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and
to issue Street Work and Encroachment Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private
contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress
2.c
Packet Pg. 33
driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of
this project.
73. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: The property owner shall provide a public access easement for
the additional feet of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building
edge on the El Camino Real frontage. Alternatively, the property owner may dedicate the
space to the City of Palo Alto. The easement or dedication shall be shown on the Tentative
and Final maps, or if the applicant chooses not to subdivide the property, show the future
easement on plans submitted for a building permit and note that the easement must be
recorded prior to building permit final.
PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY
The following conditions are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit
application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance,
Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. as further described below.
74. The applicant shall provide bio retention fabric-type detail at building permit phase. Please
be advised that the type of fabric is determined by the water table level of the site.
75. 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.
76. NO NET LOSS OF URBAN CANOPY. In order to maintain the Urban Forest Master Plan goals,
change cherry and aristocrat pears to native or drought-tolerant, climate adapted species of
similar size and stature. Suggested species for the cherry trees include, but are not limited
to, western redbud, smoke tree, fremontia, purple hop bush, toyon, or manzanita.
Suggested species for the Aristocrat pears include, but are not limited to, Catalina
ironwood, blue oak, silver linden, or skyrocket oak. Prior to submittal of building permit,
City staff and the Applicant will determine locations for replacement trees on site and
adjacent to the site (a portion of the 229 required). If required, compensation for the
remaining replacement trees to be paid through in-lieu fees at $650.00 per tree will be
determined. When updated, these trees will satisfy the zero-net canopy loss goals put forth
in the Master Plan.
77. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection
and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as
stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC
8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and
2.c
Packet Pg. 34
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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. 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
2.c
Packet Pg. 35
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.
PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION
84. Stormwater treatment measures
o All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed.
o Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3
Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details.
o For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should
be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle
Rodriguez at pamela.boylerodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org. Add this bullet as a note to the
building plans.
o Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during
installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez,
Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as
a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan.
85. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org)
o Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment.
Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-
Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-
friendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for
guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
o Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the
building plans.
86. Stormwater quality protection
o Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to
prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers.
o Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed).
2.c
Packet Pg. 36
o Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping.
2.c
Packet Pg. 37
ATTACHMENT D
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
180 El Camino Real, 19PLN-00110
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT)
Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards
Regulation Required Existing Proposed
Minimum Site Area, width and
depth No Requirement 52.8 Acres No Change
Minimum Front Yard
No Requirement (8)
(12 foot sidewalk
required)
Varied 25 foot setback with
5-7.5 foot sidewalk
Rear Yard
No Requirement N/A N/A
Interior Side Yard (right)
No Requirement N/A N/A
Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied No Change
Special Setback
24 feet along Sand Hill,
Arboretum and Quarry
Roads
Varied No Change
Min. yard for lot lines abutting
or opposite residential
districts or residential PC
districts
10 feet (2) N/A N/A
Max. Building Height
50 feet or
37 feet maximum
within 150 ft. of a
residential district
(other than an RM-40
or PC zone) abutting or
located within 50 feet
of the site (4)
Varied (Bloomingdales
56’6” to top of parapet
Up to 50 feet tall for
the RH building to top
of parapet
Max. Site Coverage No Requirement N/A N/A
Max. Floor Area per 18.16.060
(e) for Stanford Shopping
Center
1,412,362 net sf max
1,361,751 net sf
(94,337 sf Macy’s
Mens)
1,345,104 net sf
(loss of 16,647 sf)
(1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of
any required yard.
(2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required
for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.
(4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by
a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the
daylight plane.
(8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage.
2.d
Packet Pg. 38
Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) continued
Exclusively Non-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
No Change
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.
N/A
Outdoor Sales and
Storage (18.16.060 (h))
(2) In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the
following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and
storage:
(A) Except in shopping centers…
(B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of
2,000 sf shall be subject to a conditional use permit.
(C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as
provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) …
Stanford Shopping
Center is a “shopping
center” as defined in
Title 18, therefore this
regulation does not
apply.
Recycling Storage
(18.16.060 (i))
All new development, including approved
modifications that add thirty percent or more floor
area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and
accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the
storage of recyclable materials in appropriate
containers. The design, construction and accessibility
of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to
approval by the architectural review board, in
accordance with design guidelines adopted by that
board and approved by the city council pursuant to
Section 18.76.020.
The project includes new
interior trash rooms for
each building that are
Code compliant.
18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS 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.
2.d
Packet Pg. 39
Table 3: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)
For Shopping Center based on 1,440,110 gross square feet
Type Required Existing Proposed
Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area.
5,237 spaces required per proposed
development
5,446 spaces
5,279 spaces (42
spaces above
required for the site)
Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf, 40% long term and 60%
short term) equals 524 spaces for
the site overall (210 ST,
314 LT)
274 spaces total
344 spaces
(With addition of 30
ST, 40 LT)
Loading Space 3/70,000 -120,000 sf with 1
additional space per 50,000 sf over
120,000 sf. Total of 29 loading
spaces required.
24 loading spaces 25 loading spaces
2.d
Packet Pg. 40
Updated Arborist Report
Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
PREPARED FOR
Kimley-Horn
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300
Pleasanton, CA 94588
PREPARED BY:
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
325 Ray St.
Pleasanton, CA 94566
October 31, 2019
2.e
Packet Pg. 41
Updated Arborist Report
Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary 1
Introduction and Overview 1
Tree Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
Suitability for Preservation 6
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 7
Appraisal of Value 8
Tree Preservation Guidelines 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees 3
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 7
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Plan
Tree Assessment
Tree Disposition
Tree Appraisal
2.e
Packet Pg. 42
Updated Arborist Report
Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
Executive Summary
Kimley-Horn is planning to re-develop part of the Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto, CA.
Trees #1-149 were assessed on July 11, 2018, and trees #150-162 were assessed on October
29, 2019. The assessment included all trees, located within and adjacent to the project area.
One hundred sixty-two (162) trees representing 16 species were evaluated (Table 1). For all
species combined, trees were in good (45%) to fair (39%) condition with 15% of trees in poor
condition and 1% of trees dead. Twelve street trees (#35, 36, 124, 128 and 142-149) were
included in the assessment, and no off-site trees had canopies over the project area.
The City of Palo Alto protects native oaks 12” and greater in diameter, coast redwoods 18” and
greater in diameter and street trees of any size (Municipal Code Chapter 8.10). Based on this
definition, 34 Protected trees were included in this assessment. These trees cannot be removed
without a permit.
Based on my evaluation of the plans:
Eighty-eight (86) trees will be removed (2 Protected trees)
Six trees can potentially be preserved (1 Protected tree)
Seventy (70) trees can be preserved (31 Protected trees)
Based on the standard replacement ratios, the project will plant (or contribute to a tree fund) 249
trees.
It will be important to protect trees being preserved from construction impacts. Impacts to trees
being preserved can be minimized by following the Tree Preservation Guidelines.
The appraised value the 162 trees assessed in this report is $323,700. The appraised value of
the 86 trees to be removed is $88,600, and the appraised value of the 76 trees to be preserved is
$235,100.
Introduction and Overview
Kimley-Horn is planning to re-develop part of the Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto, CA.
Currently the project area consists of a section of a large commercial building with associated
parking lots and landscapes. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting was asked to prepare an Arborist
Report for the site as part of the application to the City of Palo Alto.
This report provides the following information:
1. Assessment of the health and structural condition of the trees within the proposed project
area based on a visual inspection from the ground.
2. Evaluation of the impacts to trees based on development plans.
3. The appraised value of assessed trees.
4. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction and maintenance phases
of development.
Tree Assessment Methods
Trees #1-149 were assessed on July 11, 2018, and trees #150-162 were assessed on October
29, 2019. The assessment included all trees, located within and adjacent to the project area.
Off-site trees with canopies extending over the property line were included in the assessment and
viewed from the subject property. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:
2.e
Packet Pg. 43
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 2
1. Identifying the tree as to species;
2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map; off-
site trees were not tagged;
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54” above grade; for off-site trees diameters
were estimated.
4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5 based on a visual
inspection from the ground:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptom of disease, with
good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural
defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of
crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with
regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large
branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.
1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage
from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for
preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its
potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.
High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential
for longevity at the site.
Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects that
can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense
management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than
those in ‘high’ category.
Low: Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot
be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of
treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that
are undesirable for landscapes and generally are unsuited for use
areas.
Description of Trees
One hundred sixty-two (162) trees representing 16 species were evaluated (Table 1). For all
species combined, trees were in good (45%) to fair (39%) condition with 15% of trees in poor
condition and 1% of trees dead. Twelve street trees (#35, 36, 124, 128 and 142-149) were
included in the assessment, and no off-site trees had canopies over the project area.
Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment, and approximate locations are
plotted on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Exhibits).
Generally the parking lot was surrounded by semi-mature to mature oaks that were in good
condition. The parking lot islands and interior landscapes had young to semi-mature ornamental
species growing in small spaces. Although some perimeter trees were in decline and some
interior trees were large and in good condition.
2.e
Packet Pg. 44
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 3
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees
Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto, CA
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Dead
(0) Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Japanese maple Acer palmatum - - - 1 1
Hackberry Celtis occidentalis - 17 8 9 34
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida - - - 1 1
Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba - - 1 - 1
Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum - - 3 4 7
Tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifera - 1 6 3 10
Crabapple Malus sylvestris - 1 6 - 7
Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis - - 3 10 13
Victorian box Pittosporus undulatum - - - 1 1
London plane Platanus x hispanica - - 5 11 16
Purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera - 2 9 4 15
Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii - - 2 - 2
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 1 3 16 21 41
Valley oak Quercus lobata - - 4 7 11
Cork oak Quercus suber - - - 1 1
Southern live oak Quercus virginiana - - - 1 1
Total 1 24 63 74 162
The most common species
assessed was coast live oak (41
trees, 25% of population). The
coast live oaks were in good (21
trees) to fair (16 trees) condition
with three trees in poor condition
and one dead tree. The oaks
were semi-mature on average
(11” average trunk diameter) but
ranged from recently planted (1”
trunk diameter) to mature (40”
trunk diameter). The most
important tree on the site was
coast live oak #39. It was
mature (40” trunk diameter) and
in fair condition with dieback
throughout the crown and many
wounds (Photo 1).
Photo 1 – Coast live oak #39 was the largest, most important
tree within the project area. It had a wide spreading crown
with dieback and wounds throughout the crown.
2.e
Packet Pg. 45
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 4
Thirty-four (34) hackberries were assessed
(21% of population). The hackberries were in
poor condition (17 trees) with nine trees in
good condition and eight trees in fair condition.
They were relatively small (7” average trunk
diameter) and ranged from 3” to 13” in trunk
diameter. The hackberries were primarily
growing in small parking lot islands which
partially explains their small size and relatively
poor health (Photo 2).
Fourteen (16) London planes were assessed
(9% of population). The London planes were
in good (11 trees) to fair (5 trees) condition
with no trees in poor condition. They were
semi-mature in development (average trunk
diameter 14”) with trunk diameters ranging
from 9” to 17”. Two varieties of London plane
appeared to be growing on the site. It
appeared that the ‘Bloodgood’ variety was
performing best which would imply that
Anthracnose is more of a problem at this
site than Powdery Mildew (Photo 3). If
London planes are planned for the future
landscape, I recommend determining the
successful cultivar in more detail and
planting it.
Fifteen (15) purpleleaf plums were
assessed (9% of population). The purple
leaf plums were in fair condition (9 trees)
with four trees in good condition and two
trees in poor condition. The purpleleaf
plums were relatively small with an average
trunk diameter of 7” and ranged in trunk
diameter from 4” to 10”.
Thirteen (13) Chinese pistaches were
growing in a row on the eastern edge of the project area (8% of population). The pistaches were
in good condition (10 trees) with three trees in fair condition and no trees in poor condition. They
were small (average trunk diameter 5”) and ranged from 2” to 8” in trunk diameter.
Eleven (11) valley oaks were assessed (7% of population). The valley oaks were in good (7
trees) to fair (4 trees) condition with no trees in poor condition. They ranged from young trees (5”
trunk diameter) to semi-mature (16” trunk diameter) with an average trunk diameter of 11”.
Ten (10) tulip trees were assessed (6% of population). The tulip trees were in fair condition (6
trees) with three trees in good condition and one tree in poor condition. They ranged from young
trees (4” trunk diameter) to mature trees (31” trunk diameter) with an average trunk diameter of
13”. Tulip tree #98 was in excellent condition, and tulip tree #113 was very large for this species
in the Bay Area (31” trunk diameter).
The remaining 14% of trees were representing nine species. Of these 22 trees, the most notable
were:
Cork oak #138 had a trunk diameter of 29” and was in excellent condition (Photo 4).
Photo 2 – Hackberries #63 and 64 were
typical of the small trees growing in the
parking lot islands.
Photo 3 – London planes #109 and 110 were in
good condition and probably ‘Bloodgood’ variety.
2.e
Packet Pg. 46
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 5
Glossy privets #94-97 had attractive crowns with dense, knotted, gnarled branching
(Photo 5).
The City of Palo Alto protects native oaks 12” and greater in diameter, coast redwoods 18” and
greater in diameter and street trees of any size (Municipal Code Chapter 8.10). Based on this
definition, 34 Protected trees were included in this assessment. These trees cannot be removed
without a permit.
Photo 4 – Cork oak
#138 was a mature
tree in excellent
condition.
Photo 5 – Glossy
privet #94 had a
dense crown with
gnarled thickly
knotted branches.
2.e
Packet Pg. 47
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 6
Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the
quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an
extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully
selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment
and perform well in the landscape.
Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and
longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are
present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage or injury if they fail.
However, we must be concerned about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development
encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider their structural stability as well as their
potential to grow and thrive in a new environment. Where development will not occur, the normal
life cycles of decline, structural failure and death should be allowed to continue.
Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition
of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are
non-vigorous trees. For example, coast live oak #125 was declining and unlikely to
survive regardless of construction impact.
Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be
corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to
people or property is likely. For example, tulip tree #141 had large dead branches that
were cracked and may fall.
Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts
and changes in the environment. For instance, coast live oaks are more tolerant of root
pruning than valley oaks.
Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited
physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to
generate new tissue and respond to change.
Species invasiveness
Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always
appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.
The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database http://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/
lists species identified as being invasive. Palo Alto is part of the Central West Floristic
Province. Glossy privet and purpleleaf plum are listed as limited invasiveness.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition
and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Assessment in
Exhibits, and Table 2). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best
candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for
preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate
suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.
2.e
Packet Pg. 48
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 7
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation
Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto, CA
High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential
for longevity at the site. Forty-two (42) trees had high suitability for
preservation.
Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be
abated with treatment. These trees require more intense management and
monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category.
Seventy (70) trees had moderate suitability for preservation.
Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure
that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline
regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either
characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use
areas. Forty-nine (49) trees had low suitability for preservation.
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
The Tree Assessment was the reference point for tree health, condition, and suitability for
preservation. I used the Tree Disposition Plan, Site Plan and Utility created by Kimley-Horn
dated October 25, 2019 to estimate impacts to trees. The plans show two areas of the parking lot
being completely demolished for two new buildings. Surveyed trunk locations were overlaid with
development plans for the majority of trees.
The disposition of each tree is shown in Tree Disposition Table (see Exhibits). Based on my
evaluation of the plans:
Eighty-eight (86) trees will be removed (2 Protected trees)
Six trees can potentially be preserved (1 Protected tree)
Seventy (70) trees can be preserved (31 Protected trees)
Of the 86 trees being removed:
53 trees will be removed to install new hardscape including parking lots, sidewalks, patios
and bioretention areas.
32 trees will be removed to construct the new buildings. This includes tree #159-162
which are growing adjacent to the current Macy’s building and are unlikely to survive
demolition and reconstruction of this building.
One dead tree (#34).
Based on the standard replacement ratios, the project will plant (or contribute to a tree fund) 249
trees.
Seven trees are planned for preservation but have construction impacts within the area that I
would normally recommend for a Tree Protection Zone. These trees may be relatively
unaffected, or may experience severe root loss depending on the location of the roots.
Crabapples #118 and 119 have a proposed pathway and a fire hydrant planned within a
few feet of their trunks. Crabapple #122 has a differently shaped island. I don’t expect
root loss to be severe for any of these trees; however, it is difficult to preserve trees so
close to construction.
Coast live oaks #129 and 130 are growing in small planting strips that will be expanded
into larger planting areas. Generally, this is good for the trees but only if done carefully.
2.e
Packet Pg. 49
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 8
Cork oak #138 has an underground electrical utility running through its Tree Protection
Zone approximately 4 feet from the tree. In order to maintain this location, trenching
should not occur within the Tree Protection Zone or within 10 feet of the Tree Protection
Fencing. I recommend boring underneath the tree and infrastructure so that at least 24”
of soil and roots are left intact to avoid severe root loss from the trenching. The total
length of the boring should be at least 25 feet in length to avoid roots outside of the Tree
Protection Fencing.
Seventy (70) trees should not be impacted by construction. Root pruning may be required for
some trees such as #67-70 which likely have roots on the El Camino side of the sidewalk where
excavation will be required to widen the sidewalk. Crown pruning may be required for some trees
for construction equipment clearance, but none is currently planned. But many trees will be given
more growing space. For example, coast live oak #39 will have a larger area for root growth once
construction is complete. It will be important to protect trees being preserved from construction
impacts. Impacts to trees being preserved can be minimized by following the Tree Preservation
Guidelines (below).
The ownership has chosen to retain nine trees in poor condition. These trees are away from the
hardscape construction areas, but I recommend monitoring these trees annually to manage for
risk and pruning or removing trees requiring management.
Appraisal of Value
The City of Palo Alto requires establishing the value of all assessed trees. To accomplish this, I
used the standard methods found in Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition (published in 2000 by
the International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign IL). In addition, I referred to Species
Classification and Group Assignment (2004), a publication of the Western Chapter of the
International Society of Arboriculture. These two documents outline the methods employed in
tree appraisal.
The value of landscape trees is based upon four factors: size, species, condition and location.
Size is measured as trunk diameter, normally 54" above grade. The species factor considers the
adaptability and appropriateness of the plant in the south bay area. The Species Classification
and Group Assignment lists recommended species ratings and evaluations. Condition reflects
the health and structural integrity of the individual, as noted in the Tree Assessment. Location
considers the site, placement and contribution of the tree in its surrounding landscape.
The appraised value the 162 trees assessed in this report is $323,700. The appraised value of
the 86 trees to be removed is $88,600, and the appraised value of the 76 trees to be preserved is
$235,100. The appraised value of each tree is shown in the Tree Appraisal Exhibits.
Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of
tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive
injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset.
The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care
with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction
activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain
and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases.
Tree Protection Zone
1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be identified for each tree to be preserved. The TREE
PROTECTION ZONE for each tree shall be the dripline of the tree up to the edge of construction.
2.e
Packet Pg. 50
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 9
2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to
demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with posts sunk into the
ground or equivalent as approved by the City. Figure 1 shows the location of the Tree
Protection Fencing.
Figure 1 – Tree Protection Fencing (red) shall protect the dripline of each tree up to the
perimeter fence or edge of construction.
2.e
Packet Pg. 51
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 10
3. Fences must be installed prior to beginning demolition and must remain until construction is
complete. The Project Arborist shall inspect Tree Protection Fencing prior to demolition or
construction activities.
4. No grading, excavation, construction or storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the
TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
5. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the
TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
Design recommendations
1. Any changes to the plans affecting the trees should be reviewed by the consulting arborist
with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, site plans, improvement
plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and
demolition plans.
2. Plan for tree preservation by designing adequate space around trees to be preserved. This is
the TREE PROTECTION ZONE: No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials
should occur within that zone. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains,
water or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
3. Consider the vertical clearance requirements near trees during design. Avoid designs that
would require pruning more than 20% of a tree’s canopy.
4. All plans affecting trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree
impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, grading plans, drainage
plans, utility plans, and landscape and irrigation plans.
5. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching severs roots larger than 1” in
diameter will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
6. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Consulting Arborist, which include
specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included on all
plans.
7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled
for that use.
8. Do not lime the subsoil within 50’ of any tree. Lime is toxic to tree roots.
9. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area.
Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be
designed to withstand differential displacement.
10. Ensure adequate but not excessive water is supplied to trees; in most cases occasional
irrigation will be required. Avoid directing runoff toward trees.
Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Consulting Arborist
before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree
protection measures.
2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the Tree Protection Zone prior to
demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link. Fences are to remain until
all grading and construction is completed. The Tree Protection Fencing is shown in Figure 1.
3. When infrastructure requires demolition within the Tree Protection Fencing, the fencing
should only be removed under direction of the Project Arborist. The Project Arborist may
2.e
Packet Pg. 52
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 11
recommend wattling or straw bales to protect the tree during demolition and will be present
during demolition in these areas.
4. Apply and maintain 4-6” wood chip mulch within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Keep the mulch
2’ from the base of tree trunks.
5. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be tied back
and protected from damage.
6. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Where demolition must
occur close to trees, such as removing curb and pavement, install trunk protection devices
such as winding silt sock wattling around trunks or stacking hay bales around tree trunks.
7. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown of dead branches 1” and larger in diameter,
raise canopies as needed for construction activities.
a. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor
(C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in
accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of
Arboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National
Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).
b. The Consulting Arborist will provide pruning specifications prior to site demolition.
c. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be
tied back and protected from damage.
d. While in the tree the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify any defects,
weak branch and trunk attachments and decay not visible from the ground. Any
additional work needed to mitigate defects shall be reported to the property owner.
8. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) or located
within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE of tree(s) to remain shall be removed by a Certified Arborist
or Certified Tree Worker and not by the demolition contractor. The Certified Arborist or
Certified Tree Worker shall remove the trees in a manner that causes no damage to the
tree(s) and understory to remain. Stumps shall be ground below grade.
9. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall away from TREE PROTECTION ZONE and avoid
pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the Consulting Arborist
may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees, or grinding
the stump below ground.
10. All down brush and trees shall be removed from the TREE PROTECTION ZONE either by hand,
or with equipment sitting outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Extraction shall occur by lifting
the material out, not by skidding across the ground. Brush shall be chipped and spread
beneath the trees within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE
11. Structures and underground features to be removed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall
use equipment that will minimize damage to trees above and below ground, and operate from
outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Tie back branches and wrap trunks with protective
materials to protect from injury as directed by the Project arborist. The Project arborist shall
be on-site during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to monitor demolition
activity.
12. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and
Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and
removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should
be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work
buffers for active nests.
2.e
Packet Pg. 53
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 12
Recommendations for tree protection during construction
1. Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the TREE PROTECTION
ZONE should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
2. No trenching shall occur within the Tree Protection Zone of tree #138 to install the
underground electrical utilities. Within the Tree Protection Zone, the construction crew will
bore underneath the tree and infrastructure so that no soil is disturbed within 24” of the
surface. The total length of the boring shall be at least 25 feet in length to avoid roots outside
of the Tree Protection Fencing.
3. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be
preserved.
4. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work
area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without
permission of the Consulting Arborist.
5. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside TREE PROTECTION ZONE at
all times.
6. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be
supervised by the Project Arborist. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a flat and
smooth cut. Removal of roots larger than 2” in diameter should be avoided.
7. If roots 2” and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to
complete the construction, the Project Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on the
health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment.
8. Any brush clearing required within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be accomplished with
hand-operated equipment.
9. All down brush and trees shall be removed from the TREE PROTECTION ZONE either by hand,
or with equipment sitting outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Extraction shall occur by lifting
the material out, not by skidding across the ground.
10. Prior to grading or trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTION
ZONE. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of,
and be supervised by, the Project Arborist.
11. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently.
12. All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible.
The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Consulting
Arborist.
13. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist (every 3
to 6 weeks is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a
depth of 30”.
14. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as
possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
15. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored
within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
16. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a
Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel.
17. Trees that accumulate a sufficient quantity of dust on their leaves, limbs and trunk as judged
by the Consulting Arborist shall be spray-washed at the direction of the Project Arborist.
2.e
Packet Pg. 54
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 13
Maintenance of impacted trees
Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say
that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does
occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of
defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can
saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we
cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component
of enhancing public safety.
Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the
time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases.
Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In
addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and
structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree
owner.
Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a
result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization,
mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for
monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority.
If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Ryan Gilpin, M.S.
Certified Arborist #WE-10268A
2.e
Packet Pg. 55
Updated Arborist Report, Stanford Shopping Center HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
October 31, 2019 Page 14
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Map
Tree Assessment
Tree Disposition
Tree Appraisal
2.e
Packet Pg. 56
2.e
Packet Pg. 57
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
1 Ginkgo 21 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 4 feet; sinuous trunks; 15 inch removed
branch; dense crown.
2 Valley oak 15 Yes 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown; minor dieback.
3 Coast live oak 16 Yes 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; dense crown; tussock moth.
4 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; dense small crown.
5 Coast live oak 17 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 9 feet with wide attachment;
sinuous upper trunk; dense crown.
6 Coast live oak 14 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 9 feet with wide attachment; crown
one sided west; dense crown.
7 Valley oak 11 No 5 High Multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; dense crown.
8 Valley oak 11 No 4 High Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet; dense crown; minor
dieback.
9 Valley oak 5 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; no leader; short tree.
10 Valley oak 7 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; dense crown; small leaves;
growing into light post.
11 Valley oak 14 Yes 5 High Strong central leader; dense crown; branch with included bark at
10 feet.
12 Valley oak 10 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown; lower branch
dieback.
13 Valley oak 6 No 3 Moderate No leader; dense small crown.
14 Valley oak 16 Yes 5 High Codominant trunks arise from 15 feet; dense crown.
15 Coast live oak 7 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet with chaotic form; short bushy
crown; poorly pruned; long epicormic with anthracnose.
16 Coast live oak 8 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet with chaotic form; short bushy
crown; anthracnose.
Tree Assessment Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
October 2019
2.e
Packet Pg. 58
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
October 2019
17 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; short dense crown; swollen
base likely from old borer damage.
18 Purpleleaf plum 7 No 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; minor dieback; tussock moth.
19 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 1 Low Mostly dead.
20 Purpleleaf plum 7 No 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; minor dieback; tussock moth.
21 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; minor dieback; tussock moth.
22 Purpleleaf plum 8 No 2 Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; dieback; tussock moth.
23 Purpleleaf plum 8 No 3 Low Codominant trunks arise from 5 feet; dense crown; leaning east;
circling irrigation line.
24 Hackberry 8 No 2 Low Half dead.
25 Hackberry 8 No 2 Low Half dead.
26 Coast live oak 1 No 5 High Good young tree.
27 Hackberry 4 No 2 Low Half dead.
28 Hackberry 8 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; vase shaped crown.
29 Hackberry 5 No 2 Low Half dead.
30 Hackberry 5 No 2 Low Half dead.
31 Hackberry 5 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; minor dieback.
32 Hackberry 6 No 2 Low Half dead.
33 Hackberry 8 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; minor dieback.
34 Coast live oak 1 No 0 -Dead.
35 London plane 13 Yes 3 Moderate Street tree; multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; high narrow crown.
36 London plane 11 Yes 4 Moderate Street tree; strong central leader; high narrow crown.
37 Valley oak 16 Yes 4 High Codominant trunks arise from 12 feet; dense crown.
2.e
Packet Pg. 59
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
October 2019
38 Valley oak 11 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet; dense crown.
39 Coast live oak 40 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; dominant tree; dieback
throughout crown; many wounds.
40 Hackberry 8 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; minor dieback; crown one
sided south.
41 Hackberry 9 No 2 Low Half dead.
42 Coast live oak 1 No 5 High Good young tree.
43 Hackberry 5 No 2 Low Half dead.
44 Hackberry 7 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; minor dieback; crown one sided
south.
45 Hackberry 7 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; minor dieback.
46 Hackberry 3 No 2 Low Half dead.
47 Hackberry 8 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; minor dieback.
48 Hackberry 9 No 2 Low Poor form and structure; dieback.
49 Hackberry 9 No 2 Low Half dead.
50 Hackberry 8 No 2 Low Half dead.
51 Hackberry 5 No 3 Low Thin crown; water stressed.
52 Hackberry 13 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; thin upper crown; wide crown.
53 Purpleleaf plum 8 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; dense wide crown.
54 Purpleleaf plum 8 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; dense wide crown; minor
dieback.
55 Purpleleaf plum 8 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; dense wide crown; tussock moth.
56 Hackberry 7 No 3 Low Thin crown; declining.
57 Hackberry 8 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; minor dieback.
58 Hackberry 5 No 2 Low Half dead.
2.e
Packet Pg. 60
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
October 2019
59 Hackberry 9 No 2 Low Half dead.
60 Hackberry 9 No 3 Low Thin upper crown; declining.
61 Hackberry 8 No 2 Low Half dead.
62 Hackberry 7 No 3 Low Thin upper crown; declining.
63 Hackberry 9 No 2 Low Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; thin crown; declining.
64 Hackberry 3 No 5 High Good young tree.
65 Hackberry 7 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; dense crown; crown one sided
west.
66 Coast live oak 2 No 5 High Good young tree.
67 Coast live oak 14 Yes 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; chaotic form; dense crown.
68 Coast live oak 14 Yes 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; chaotic form; dense crown.
69 Coast live oak 14 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; chaotic form; dense crown; prune
for structure.
70 Coast live oak 8 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; chaotic form; dense crown.
71 Coast live oak 6 No 2 Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; totally suppressed; crown one
sided north.
72 Coast live oak 16 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet with wide attachment; dense
crown.
73 Chinese pistache 6 No 3 Low Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; crown one sided west.
74 Chinese pistache 2 No 5 High Good young tree.
75 Chinese pistache 8 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; dense wide spreading crown.
76 Hackberry 3 No 2 Low Small, stunted, declining.
77 Chinese pistache 8 No 4 High Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; wide spreading crown.
78 Chinese pistache 6 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; dense wide spreading crown.
2.e
Packet Pg. 61
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
October 2019
79 Chinese pistache 5 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; dense wide spreading crown.
80 Hackberry 7 No 3 Low Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; vase shaped crown; thin
crown; declining.
81 Chinese pistache 4 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; wide spreading crown.
82 Chinese pistache 5 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; dense wide spreading crown.
83 Chinese pistache 5 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; dense crown.
84 Hackberry 4 No 3 Low Codominant trunks arise from 7 feet; thin crown; declining.
85 Chinese pistache 6 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 6 feet; dieback.
86 Chinese pistache 6 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; dense wide spreading crown.
87 Chinese pistache 6 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; dense wide spreading crown.
88 Chinese pistache 4 No 3 Low Bowed south; thin crown.
89 Purpleleaf plum 4 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; slightly thin crown.
90 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; slightly thin crown; leaning west.
91 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; slightly thin crown; dieback.
92 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; wide spreading crown.
93 Coast live oak 23 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 5 feet with seam; buried basal flare;
flat topped; crown over shaded driveway.
94 Glossy privet 9 No 4 Moderate Gnarled, knotted branching; dense crown against building.
95 Glossy privet 10 No 4 Moderate Gnarled, knotted branching; dense crown against building.
96 Glossy privet 11 No 4 Moderate Gnarled, knotted branching; dense crown against building; large
surface root breaking into turf.
97 Glossy privet 13 No 4 Moderate Gnarled, knotted branching; dense crown against building; large
surface root breaking into turf.
2.e
Packet Pg. 62
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
October 2019
98 Tulip tree 14 No 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown.
99 Tulip tree 9 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; thin crown; low vigor.
100 London plane 12 No 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet with long levers arms; lion tailed;
anthracnose.
101 London plane 9 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; thin crown; anthracnose.
102 London plane 11 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; thin crown; anthracnose.
103 London plane 13 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 15 feet; dense crown.
104 London plane 15 No 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown.
105 London plane 13 No 4 High Good form and structure; dense crown; minor dieback.
106 London plane 13 No 4 High Good form and structure; dense crown; minor dieback; crook in
trunk at 7 feet.
107 London plane 17 No 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown.
108 London plane 17 No 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown; injection point.
109 London plane 17 No 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown; surface roots.
110 London plane 16 No 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; dense crown.
111 Glossy privet 7 No 3 Moderate Gnarled, knotted branching; small dense crown.
112 Glossy privet 6 No 3 Moderate Gnarled, knotted branching; small dense crown.
113 Tulip tree 31 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 20 feet; pruned away from building;
dieback; dominant tree.
114 Glossy privet 7 No 3 Low Gnarled, knotted branching; small dense crown one sided west.
115 Tulip tree 4 No 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 4 feet; crown one sided south; severe
sunscald.
116 Tulip tree 10 No 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet with dieback; 3 foot long trunk
wound; gridled by tree grate.
117 Crabapple 6 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; flat topped bushy form.
118 Crabapple 4 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; flat topped bushy form.
2.e
Packet Pg. 63
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
October 2019
119 Crabapple 5 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; flat topped bushy form.
120 Crabapple 3 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; flat topped bushy form.
121 Crabapple 6 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; flat topped bushy form.
122 Crabapple 6 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 5 feet; flat topped bushy form.
123 London plane 16 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 12 feet; thin crown; anthracnose.
124 Southern live oak 6 Yes 5 High Street tree; codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; dense crown.
125 Coast live oak 7 No 2 Low Mostly dead.
126 Coast live oak 10 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet with seam; prune
codominant trunks arise from 11 feet with included bark; dense
crown.
127 Coast live oak 4 No 4 High Good young tree; near crown of existing oaks.
128 Coast live oak 5 Yes 4 Moderate Street tree; bowed east; small crown; prune for structure.
129 Coast live oak 11 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; against stop sign; thin crown;
suppressed.
130 Coast live oak 19 Yes 4 Moderate Dominant tree; multiple trunks arise from 10 feet with crook and
swelling; dense wide spreading crown; lifting soil in narrow
planting strip.
131 Coast live oak 9 No 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; sweep in lower trunk; dense
crown; suppressed.
132 Coast live oak 19 Yes 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 7 feet; dense crown; competing with two
other oaks; borer activity.
133 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; dense crown; prune for
structure.
134 Coast live oak 17 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet with wide attachment; dense
crown; borer damage.
135 Coast live oak 9 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet with wide attachment; dense
crown.
2.e
Packet Pg. 64
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
October 2019
136 Coast live oak 16 Yes 4 High Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; dense crown.
137 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 8 feet with wide attachment; dense
crown.
138 Cork oak 29 No 5 High Multiple trunks arise from 10 feet; dominant tree; branch wound
from truck; no basal flare on east side.
139 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 3 Low Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; dieback.
140 Purpleleaf plum 10 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 3 feet; dense crown.
141 Tulip tree 16 No 2 Low Dead top; declining; 7 inch dead branch with hazard beam.
142 Coast live oak 10 Yes 3 Moderate Street tree; codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; dense crown one
sided south.
143 Coast live oak 6 Yes 4 Moderate Street tree; codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; dense small
crown.
144 Coast live oak 10 Yes 4 High Street tree; multiple trunks arise from 8 feet; dense small crown.
145 Coast live oak 11 Yes 4 High Street tree; multiple trunks arise from 8 feet good vigor; dense
small crown.
146 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 High Street tree; codominant trunks arise from 8 feet; good vigor; dense
crown.
147 Coast live oak 1 Yes 3 Low Street tree; staked; lost top.
148 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 Moderate Street tree; multiple trunks arise from 6 feet; dense two
dimensional crown; competing with neighboring oak.
149 Coast live oak 8 Yes 2 Low Street tree; poor form and structure; suppressed; dense crown.
150 Tulip tree 18 No 3 Low Codominant trunks arise from 20 feet with seam; in 8 foot wide
planter with surface roots around edges; girdling roots.
151 Tulip tree 9 No 3 Low Narrow form; girdling root; in 7 foot wide planter.
152 Tulip tree 14 No 4 High Good form and structure; dense crown.
153 Crabapple 4 No 2 Low Basal wound covers 60% of base; small dense crown.
2.e
Packet Pg. 65
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
October 2019
154 London plane 12 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise fromat 20 feet; wide spreading crown;
growing in a 5 foot wide island; potential girdling root.
155 London plane 11 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise fromat 20 feet; wide spreading crown;
growing in a 5 foot wide island; 5" diameter girdling root.
156 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 High Multiple trunks arise fromat 8 feet; wide, dense crown; growing in
4 foot wide planting strip; tussock moth.
157 Tulip tree 7 No 3 Moderate Multiple trunks arise fromat 8 feet; growing in 3 foot wide patio
island.
158 Victorian box 8 No 4 High In raised planted; multiple trunks arise fromat 6 feet with dense
crown; complicated lighting system attached.
159 Japanese maple 4,4,2,2,2 No 4 Moderate Multiple trunks arise fromat 3 feet; dense crown totally filling
space.
160 Evergreen pear 15 No 3 Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; crown one sided east; base
5 feet from building; crown against building.
161 Evergreen pear 17 No 3 Low Codominant trunks arise from 10 feet; bowed heavily south; base
5 feet from building; crown touching building; heading cuts.
162 Flowering dogwood 2 No 4 Low Good young shrub; under crown of tree #161; base 3 feet from
building; crown touching building.
2.e
Packet Pg. 66
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Disposition Comments Replacement
Ratio
1 Ginkgo 21 No Preserve No change -
2 Valley oak 15 Yes Preserve No change -
3 Coast live oak 16 Yes Preserve No change -
4 Coast live oak 12 Yes Preserve No change -
5 Coast live oak 17 Yes Preserve No change -
6 Coast live oak 14 Yes Preserve No change -
7 Valley oak 11 No Preserve No change -
8 Valley oak 11 No Preserve No change -
9 Valley oak 5 No Preserve No change -
10 Valley oak 7 No Preserve No change -
11 Valley oak 14 Yes Preserve No change -
12 Valley oak 10 No Preserve No change -
13 Valley oak 6 No Preserve No change -
14 Valley oak 16 Yes Preserve 13' from utilities -
15 Coast live oak 7 No Preserve No change -
16 Coast live oak 8 No Preserve No change -
17 Coast live oak 12 Yes Preserve 12' from utilities -
18 Purpleleaf plum 7 No Preserve No change -
19 Purpleleaf plum 6 No Preserve No change -
20 Purpleleaf plum 7 No Preserve No change -
21 Purpleleaf plum 6 No Preserve No change -
22 Purpleleaf plum 8 No Preserve No change -
23 Purpleleaf plum 8 No Preserve No change -
24 Hackberry 8 No Preserve No change -
25 Hackberry 8 No Preserve No change -
26 Coast live oak 1 No Preserve No change -
27 Hackberry 4 No Preserve No change -
28 Hackberry 8 No Preserve No change -
29 Hackberry 5 No Preserve No change -
30 Hackberry 5 No Preserve No change -
31 Hackberry 5 No Preserve No change -
32 Hackberry 6 No Preserve No change -
33 Hackberry 8 No Preserve No change -
34 Coast live oak 1 No Remove Dead 0
35 London plane 13 Yes Preserve No change -
36 London plane 11 Yes Preserve 18' from sidewalk -
37 Valley oak 16 Yes Preserve No change -
38 Valley oak 11 No Preserve Widening sidewalk away from tree -
39 Coast live oak 40 Yes Preserve Widening sidewalk away from tree -
40 Hackberry 8 No Remove Within parking lot 3
41 Hackberry 9 No Remove Within building 3
42 Coast live oak 1 No Remove Within parking lot 0
43 Hackberry 5 No Remove Within parking lot 2
44 Hackberry 7 No Remove Within parking lot 3
45 Hackberry 7 No Remove Within parking lot 3
46 Hackberry 3 No Remove Within parking lot 2
47 Hackberry 8 No Remove Within parking lot 3
48 Hackberry 9 No Remove Within parking lot 3
Tree Disposition Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
September 2019
2.e
Packet Pg. 67
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Disposition Comments Replacement
Ratio
Tree Disposition Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
September 2019
49 Hackberry 9 No Remove Within parking lot 3
50 Hackberry 8 No Remove Within parking lot 3
51 Hackberry 5 No Remove Within parking lot 3
52 Hackberry 13 No Remove Within hardscape 3
53 Purpleleaf plum 8 No Remove Adjacent to hardscape 3
54 Purpleleaf plum 8 No Remove Within hardscape 3
55 Purpleleaf plum 8 No Remove Within parking lot 3
56 Hackberry 7 No Remove Within parking lot 3
57 Hackberry 8 No Remove Within parking lot 3
58 Hackberry 5 No Remove Within hardscape 3
59 Hackberry 9 No Remove Within building 3
60 Hackberry 9 No Remove Within building 3
61 Hackberry 8 No Remove Within building 3
62 Hackberry 7 No Remove Within building 3
63 Hackberry 9 No Remove Within building 3
64 Hackberry 3 No Remove Within building 2
65 Hackberry 7 No Remove Within building 3
66 Coast live oak 2 No Remove Within building 0
67 Coast live oak 14 Yes Preserve Widening sidewalk away from tree -
68 Coast live oak 14 Yes Preserve Widening sidewalk away from tree -
69 Coast live oak 14 Yes Preserve Widening sidewalk away from tree -
70 Coast live oak 8 No Preserve Widening sidewalk away from tree -
71 Coast live oak 6 No Preserve 18' from building -
72 Coast live oak 16 Yes Preserve 18' from building -
73 Chinese pistache 6 No Remove Within hardscape 3
74 Chinese pistache 2 No Remove Within building 2
75 Chinese pistache 8 No Remove Within building 3
76 Hackberry 3 No Remove Within building 2
77 Chinese pistache 8 No Remove Within building 3
78 Chinese pistache 6 No Remove Within building 3
79 Chinese pistache 5 No Remove Within building 3
80 Hackberry 7 No Remove Within building 3
81 Chinese pistache 4 No Remove Within building 3
82 Chinese pistache 5 No Remove Within building 3
83 Chinese pistache 5 No Remove Within building 3
84 Hackberry 4 No Remove Within building 2
85 Chinese pistache 6 No Remove Within building 3
86 Chinese pistache 6 No Remove Within building 3
87 Chinese pistache 6 No Remove Within hardscape 3
88 Chinese pistache 4 No Remove Within parking lot 3
89 Purpleleaf plum 4 No Remove 4' from hardscape changes 3
90 Purpleleaf plum 6 No Remove Within hardscape 3
91 Purpleleaf plum 5 No Remove Within hardscape 2
92 Purpleleaf plum 6 No Remove Within hardscape 3
93 Coast live oak 23 Yes Remove Within parking lot 6
94 Glossy privet 9 No Remove Within parking lot 3
95 Glossy privet 10 No Remove Within parking lot 3
96 Glossy privet 11 No Remove Adjacent to hardscape 3
2.e
Packet Pg. 68
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Disposition Comments Replacement
Ratio
Tree Disposition Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
September 2019
97 Glossy privet 13 No Remove Within hardscape 3
98 Tulip tree 14 No Remove Within hardscape 3
99 Tulip tree 9 No Remove Within hardscape 3
100 London plane 12 No Remove Within hardscape 3
101 London plane 9 No Remove Within hardscape 3
102 London plane 11 No Remove Adjacent to building 3
103 London plane 13 No Remove Within building 3
104 London plane 15 No Remove Within building 3
105 London plane 13 No Remove Within building 3
106 London plane 13 No Remove Within building 3
107 London plane 17 No Remove Within building 3
108 London plane 17 No Remove Within hardscape 3
109 London plane 17 No Remove Within hardscape 3
110 London plane 16 No Remove Adjacent to hardscape 4
111 Glossy privet 7 No Remove Within hardscape 3
112 Glossy privet 6 No Remove Within hardscape 3
113 Tulip tree 31 No Remove Within hardscape 6
114 Glossy privet 7 No Remove Within hardscape 3
115 Tulip tree 4 No Remove Within parking lot 3
116 Tulip tree 10 No Remove Adjacent to hardscape 3
117 Crabapple 6 No Preserve No change -
118 Crabapple 4 No Potentially preserve 3' from fire hydrant -
119 Crabapple 5 No Potentially preserve 4' from hardscape -
120 Crabapple 3 No Preserve No change -
121 Crabapple 6 No Preserve No change -
122 Crabapple 6 No Potentially preserve Changing shape of island -
123 London plane 16 No Preserve 11' from fire hydrant -
124 Southern live oak 6 Yes Preserve 20' from driveway -
125 Coast live oak 7 No Remove Adjacent to hardscape 3
126 Coast live oak 10 No Remove Within driveway 3
127 Coast live oak 4 No Remove Within driveway 2
128 Coast live oak 5 Yes Remove Within driveway 2
129 Coast live oak 11 No Potentially preserve 9' from bioretention -
130 Coast live oak 19 Yes Potentially preserve 18' from driveway -
131 Coast live oak 9 No Preserve 23' from bioretention -
132 Coast live oak 19 Yes Preserve 20' from bioretention -
133 Coast live oak 15 Yes Preserve 20' from bioretention -
134 Coast live oak 17 Yes Preserve 14' from bioretention -
135 Coast live oak 9 No Remove Adjacent to bioretention 3
136 Coast live oak 16 Yes Preserve 11' from bioretention -
137 Coast live oak 16 Yes Preserve 14' from bioretention -
138 Cork oak 29 No Potentially preserve 4' from underground electric -
139 Purpleleaf plum 6 No Preserve 5' from sidewalk replacement -
140 Purpleleaf plum 10 No Preserve 5' from sidewalk replacement -
141 Tulip tree 16 No Remove Within hardscape 3
142 Coast live oak 10 Yes Preserve No change -
143 Coast live oak 6 Yes Preserve No change -
144 Coast live oak 10 Yes Preserve No change -
2.e
Packet Pg. 69
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Disposition Comments Replacement
Ratio
Tree Disposition Stanford Shopping Center
Palo Alto, CA
September 2019
145 Coast live oak 11 Yes Preserve No change -
146 Coast live oak 12 Yes Preserve No change -
147 Coast live oak 1 Yes Preserve No change -
148 Coast live oak 15 Yes Preserve No change -
149 Coast live oak 8 Yes Preserve No change -
150 Tulip tree 18 No Remove 9' from hardscape 4
151 Tulip tree 9 No Remove Within hardscape 3
152 Tulip tree 14 No Remove Within hardscape 3
153 Crabapple 4 No Preserve Poor condition -
154 London plane 12 No Remove Within hardscape 4
155 London plane 11 No Preserve 19' from hardscape changes -
156 Coast live oak 15 Yes Preserve 25' from hardscape changes -
157 Tulip tree 7 No Preserve 26' from hardscape changes -
158 Victorian box 8 No Preserve Installing bike racks in hardscape -
159 Japanese maple 4,4,2,2,2 No Remove 5' from building demolition and construction 3
160 Evergreen pear 15 No Remove 5' from building demolition and construction 3
161 Evergreen pear 17 No Remove 5' from building demolition and construction 3
162 Flowering dogwood 2 No Remove 3' from building demolition and construction 3
2.e
Packet Pg. 70
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Tree?
Appraised
Value
1 Ginkgo 21 No 3,750$
2 Valley oak 15 Yes 8,050$
3 Coast live oak 16 Yes 5,450$
4 Coast live oak 12 Yes 2,200$
5 Coast live oak 17 Yes 4,400$
6 Coast live oak 14 Yes 3,000$
7 Valley oak 11 No 5,650$
8 Valley oak 11 No 4,400$
9 Valley oak 5 No 700$
10 Valley oak 7 No 1,300$
11 Valley oak 14 Yes 9,050$
12 Valley oak 10 No 3,650$
13 Valley oak 6 No 1,000$
14 Valley oak 16 Yes 11,800$
15 Coast live oak 7 No 800$
16 Coast live oak 8 No 1,050$
17 Coast live oak 12 Yes 2,200$
18 Purpleleaf plum 7 No 350$
19 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 50$
20 Purpleleaf plum 7 No 350$
21 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 250$
22 Purpleleaf plum 8 No 300$
23 Purpleleaf plum 8 No 450$
24 Hackberry 8 No 400$
25 Hackberry 8 No 400$
26 Coast live oak 1 No 100$
27 Hackberry 4 No 100$
28 Hackberry 8 No 800$
29 Hackberry 5 No 150$
30 Hackberry 5 No 150$
31 Hackberry 5 No 250$
32 Hackberry 6 No 200$
33 Hackberry 8 No 950$
34 Coast live oak 1 No -$
35 London plane 13 Yes 2,000$
36 London plane 11 Yes 2,050$
37 Valley oak 16 Yes 9,150$
38 Valley oak 11 No 3,150$
39 Coast live oak 40 Yes 21,950$
40 Hackberry 8 No 950$
Tree Appraisal
2.e
Packet Pg. 71
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Tree?
Appraised
Value
Tree Appraisal
41 Hackberry 9 No 500$
42 Coast live oak 1 No 100$
43 Hackberry 5 No 150$
44 Hackberry 7 No 600$
45 Hackberry 7 No 600$
46 Hackberry 3 No 50$
47 Hackberry 8 No 800$
48 Hackberry 9 No 450$
49 Hackberry 9 No 450$
50 Hackberry 8 No 350$
51 Hackberry 5 No 250$
52 Hackberry 13 No 1,450$
53 Purpleleaf plum 8 No 650$
54 Purpleleaf plum 8 No 450$
55 Purpleleaf plum 8 No 650$
56 Hackberry 7 No 500$
57 Hackberry 8 No 950$
58 Hackberry 5 No 150$
59 Hackberry 9 No 450$
60 Hackberry 9 No 700$
61 Hackberry 8 No 350$
62 Hackberry 7 No 450$
63 Hackberry 9 No 450$
64 Hackberry 3 No 200$
65 Hackberry 7 No 750$
66 Coast live oak 2 No 200$
67 Coast live oak 14 Yes 4,200$
68 Coast live oak 14 Yes 4,200$
69 Coast live oak 14 Yes 3,000$
70 Coast live oak 8 No 1,450$
71 Coast live oak 6 No 350$
72 Coast live oak 16 Yes 5,450$
73 Chinese pistache 6 No 650$
74 Chinese pistache 2 No 200$
75 Chinese pistache 8 No 1,550$
76 Hackberry 3 No 100$
77 Chinese pistache 8 No 1,550$
78 Chinese pistache 6 No 900$
79 Chinese pistache 5 No 650$
80 Hackberry 7 No 500$
2.e
Packet Pg. 72
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Tree?
Appraised
Value
Tree Appraisal
81 Chinese pistache 4 No 450$
82 Chinese pistache 5 No 650$
83 Chinese pistache 5 No 650$
84 Hackberry 4 No 200$
85 Chinese pistache 6 No 650$
86 Chinese pistache 6 No 900$
87 Chinese pistache 6 No 900$
88 Chinese pistache 4 No 300$
89 Purpleleaf plum 4 No 150$
90 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 250$
91 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 200$
92 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 400$
93 Coast live oak 23 Yes 6,700$
94 Glossy privet 9 No 500$
95 Glossy privet 10 No 600$
96 Glossy privet 11 No 750$
97 Glossy privet 13 No 1,000$
98 Tulip tree 14 No 1,500$
99 Tulip tree 9 No 500$
100 London plane 12 No 1,450$
101 London plane 9 No 850$
102 London plane 11 No 1,250$
103 London plane 13 No 2,350$
104 London plane 15 No 4,050$
105 London plane 13 No 2,350$
106 London plane 13 No 2,350$
107 London plane 17 No 5,150$
108 London plane 17 No 5,150$
109 London plane 17 No 5,150$
110 London plane 16 No 3,550$
111 Glossy privet 7 No 200$
112 Glossy privet 6 No 150$
113 Tulip tree 31 No 3,950$
114 Glossy privet 7 No 200$
115 Tulip tree 4 No 100$
116 Tulip tree 10 No 450$
117 Crabapple 6 No 500$
118 Crabapple 4 No 250$
119 Crabapple 5 No 350$
120 Crabapple 3 No 150$
2.e
Packet Pg. 73
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Tree?
Appraised
Value
Tree Appraisal
121 Crabapple 6 No 500$
122 Crabapple 6 No 500$
123 London plane 16 No 2,550$
124 Southern live oak 6 Yes 1,750$
125 Coast live oak 7 No 500$
126 Coast live oak 10 No 2,200$
127 Coast live oak 4 No 450$
128 Coast live oak 5 Yes 600$
129 Coast live oak 11 No 1,900$
130 Coast live oak 19 Yes 7,650$
131 Coast live oak 9 No 1,300$
132 Coast live oak 19 Yes 7,650$
133 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4,800$
134 Coast live oak 17 Yes 4,400$
135 Coast live oak 9 No 1,300$
136 Coast live oak 16 Yes 5,450$
137 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3,900$
138 Cork oak 29 No 38,450$
139 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 250$
140 Purpleleaf plum 10 No 1,000$
141 Tulip tree 16 No 650$
142 Coast live oak 10 Yes 1,550$
143 Coast live oak 6 Yes 850$
144 Coast live oak 10 Yes 2,200$
145 Coast live oak 11 Yes 2,650$
146 Coast live oak 12 Yes 3,100$
147 Coast live oak 1 Yes 100$
148 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4,800$
149 Coast live oak 8 Yes 600$
150 Tulip tree 18 No 300$
151 Tulip tree 9 No 300$
152 Tulip tree 14 No 400$
153 Crabapple 4 No 450$
154 London plane 12 No 850$
155 London plane 11 No 900$
156 Coast live oak 15 Yes 1,650$
157 Tulip tree 7 No 350$
158 Victorian box 8 No 1,950$
159 Japanese maple 4,4,2,2,2 No 1,850$
160 Evergreen pear 15 No 1,000$
2.e
Packet Pg. 74
Tree No.Species Trunk
Diameter (in.)
Protected
Tree?
Appraised
Value
Tree Appraisal
161 Evergreen pear 17 No 1,050$
162 Flowering dogwood 2 No 1,500$
Total 323,700$
2.e
Packet Pg. 75
Page 1
Simon.com 225 West Washington St. Indianapolis IN 46204 317.636.1600
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Project Description for Stanford Shopping Center Macy’s Men’s Redevelopment-
Option #1
From: Matt Klinzing
Date: October 11, 2019
Introduction
SPG Center, LLC proposes the redevelopment of the existing Macy's Men’s department store located
at the Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto, California. Following is a summary of the project
description for the proposed project.
Stanford Shopping Center
Stanford Shopping Center is bordered by El Camino Real to the north, Arboretum Road to the south,
Orchard Lane to the east and Sand Hill Road to the west. Stanford Shopping Center is zoned CC and
has the Comprehensive Plan Designation of Regional/Community Commercial. The existing Macy’s
Men’s building is located within the Stanford Shopping Center at 180 El Camino Real, Building B, as
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Project Area
2.f
Packet Pg. 76
Page 2
Simon.com 225 West Washington St. Indianapolis IN 46204 317.636.1600
Project Description
The proposed project proposes to redevelop the Macy’s Men’s building, located in the northwest portion
of the site, near the intersection Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real. The redevelopment of this section
of the site will include the following:
• Demolition of the existing Macy's Men’s building – 94,337 SF
• Removal of some surface parking
• Construction of three (3) buildings and a building pad:
o Restoration Hardware (RH) – 41,850 SF
o Wilkes Bashford Building Pad
o Building EE (two (2) small shops buildings) – 6,749 SF (total); 3,373 SF/3,376 SF
(each)
• Relocation of utilities in the proposed project area
• Update vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MACY’S MEN’S BUILDING AND
REMOVAL OF SURFACE PARKING
The project will demolish the existing 94,337 SF Macy’s Men’s building, resulting in a net loss of 169
parking spaces. Based on square footage and parking calculation, the overall Stanford Shopping
Center will still exceed the number of parking spaces required by City Code by 85 parking spaces.
RESTORATION HARDWARE (RH)
The proposed RH building will be 41,850 SF and located north of the existing Macy’s Men’s building.
The main entries to the building are located on the west and east elevations, with outdoor courtyard
areas adjacent to these entrances.
The north elevation faces Sand Hill Road, where a required bio-swale treatment area and planting will
be provided for the building’s roof leaders. The south side faces a new decorative concrete internal
roadway with the proposed utility connections at the southeast corner of the structure. The three-story
building represents an innovative retail concept and a seamlessly integrated hospitality experience.
The architectural design follows the basic principles of balance, proportion, symmetry, and the blending
of indoor and outdoor experiences.
Landscaping adds dimension on all levels, from the ground-floor courtyards and second-floor terraces
to the rooftop gardens. Bi-fold doors and metal louvered awnings that open onto the sidewalk as well
as a one-story loggia break up the building’s mass and give the gallery a more pedestrian scale. Large
windows on all floors fill the rooms with natural light.
The meticulously chosen exterior materials—including a grey steel trowel smooth plaster, cast-stone
caps at parapet walls, and the landscaping’s bluestone pavers and decomposed granite—give the
building a bespoke, residential feel.
The ground and second floors will feature artistic installations of home furnishings in a gallery setting.
These floors will also include an interactive RH Design Atelier, an interior design workspace where our
2.f
Packet Pg. 77
Page 3
Simon.com 225 West Washington St. Indianapolis IN 46204 317.636.1600
professional designers collaborate with customers to reimagine one room or an entire home. The third
floor will feature a walk-up pantry, barista bar, and a rooftop café with approximately 150 seats. The
hospitality experience on this floor will offer an ingredient-driven restaurant menu, a curated selection
of artisanal wines, and handcrafted coffees and pastries.
WILKES BASHFORD BUILDING PAD (W-B)
A building pad will be provided for the construction of the Wilkes Bashford retail building.
BUILDING EE
Part of the Macy’s Men’s redevelopment of the Stanford Shopping Center, proposes an addition north
of the existing Building J, which is located immediately adjacent to the south of the Macy’s Men’s
building. The proposed new Building EE expansion allocates two new small retail shop spaces to be
constructed. The proposed retail expansion encompasses 6,749 SF, where one unit will be 3,373 SF
and the other unit 3,376 SF. The primary entrances to each tenant will flank their primary corners,
respectively, with a new table topped connecting roadway separating the expansion from the RH
development to the north. Primary building elements of warm brick, cast stone, generous amount of
glazing, dark steel metal canopies, textured stucco, and a living green wall provide ample façade
variation but a cohesive back drop to the retail promenade event space. Large patio areas flanking both
tenants further encourages engagement with programmed ‘pop-up’ uses of the event space providing
a positive pedestrian experience. In addition to the landlord provided finishes on the exterior, each
tenant is provided a level branding that allows for application of tenant specific finishes to the exterior.
SITE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
The project will also include site circulation improvements in the area of redevelopment. For vehicular
traffic, the project will construct a new enhanced internal connecting roadway, a new right-out only
driveway onto Sandhill Road, and redesigned parking areas to serve the proposed project. The
enhanced roadway will be a new east-west connector located between the Restoration Hardware and
Building EE and will provide vehicle access between the Wilkes Bashford Store and the shops to the
west of the Restoration Hardware store. The enhanced roadway will be 22-feet wide, be raised six (6)
inches higher to be flush with adjacent hardscape and pedestrian elements and be texture pavement
to reduce speeds. The project will construct a new un-signalized driveway onto Sandhill Road. This
driveway will be restricted to be a right-out only driveway. As mentioned previously, a net loss of 165
parking spaces will result from construction of the Restoration Hardware and Wilkes Bashford sites,
however, the parking within the project area will be redesigned to accommodate 10 ADA and 57 EV
conduit-only spaces.
The project area will include additional bike locations. The bicycle racks will be located within the
development area and the balance of the site to meet the city guidelines. A pending update to the
previously conducted bicycle transportation study will provide final locations, quantities and types of
racks needed to meet all guidelines.
2.f
Packet Pg. 78
Page 4
Simon.com 225 West Washington St. Indianapolis IN 46204 317.636.1600
The construction of the Wilkes Bashford building will include widening the sidewalks along El Camino
Real between Sand Hill Road and Pistache Place while meeting the requirements of the arborist report
for protection of existing trees in this area. The project will also include installing crosswalks at the
northwest and southwest corner of the Wilkes Bashford site for pedestrians crossing Shopping Center
Way and Pistache Place. The Southwest crosswalk across Shopping Center Way will be a table-topped
crosswalk to encourage pedestrian connection to the West entrance of the Wilkes Bashford building.
Additional crosswalks will be installed to connect RH to the parking lot east of the building.
Overall, the project will improve the site circulation in the project area and create clear and safe
pathways for patrons accessing this area of the shopping center through multiple modes.
2.f
Packet Pg. 79
Page 5
Simon.com 225 West Washington St. Indianapolis IN 46204 317.636.1600
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Project Description for Stanford Shopping Center Macy’s Men’s Redevelopment-
Option #2
• From: • Matt Klinzing
Date: October 11, 2019
Introduction
SPG Center, LLC proposes the redevelopment of the existing Macy's Men’s department store located
at the Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto, California. Following is a summary of the project
description for the proposed project.
Stanford Shopping Center
Stanford Shopping Center is bordered by El Camino Real to the north, Arboretum Road to the south,
Orchard Lane to the east and Sand Hill Road to the west. Stanford Shopping Center is zoned CC and
has the Comprehensive Plan Designation of Regional/Community Commercial. The existing Macy’s
Men’s building is located within the Stanford Shopping Center at 180 El Camino Real, Building B, as
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Project Area
2.f
Packet Pg. 80
Page 6
Simon.com 225 West Washington St. Indianapolis IN 46204 317.636.1600
Project Description
The proposed project proposes to redevelop the Macy’s Men’s building, located in the northwest portion
of the site, near the intersection Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real. The redevelopment of this section
of the site will include the following:
• Demolition of the existing Macy's Men’s building – 94,337 SF
• Removal of some surface parking
• Construction of four (4) buildings:
o Restoration Hardware (RH) – 41,850 SF
o Wilkes Bashford (W-B) – 29,117 SF
o Building EE (two (2) small shops buildings) – 6,749 SF (total); 3,373 SF/3,376 SF
(each)
• Relocation of utilities in the proposed project area
• Update vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MACY’S MEN’S BUILDING AND
REMOVAL OF SURFACE PARKING
The project will demolish the existing 94,337 SF Macy’s Men’s building, resulting in a net loss of 169
parking spaces. Based on square footage and parking calculation, the overall Stanford Shopping
Center will still exceed the number of parking spaces required by City Code by 85 parking spaces.
RESTORATION HARDWARE (RH)
The proposed RH building will be 41,850 SF and located north of the existing Macy’s Men’s building.
The main entries to the building are located on the west and east elevations, with outdoor courtyard
areas adjacent to these entrances.
The north elevation faces Sand Hill Road, where a required bio-swale treatment area and planting will
be provided for the building’s roof leaders. The south side faces a new decorative concrete internal
roadway with the proposed utility connections at the southeast corner of the structure. The three-story
building represents an innovative retail concept and a seamlessly integrated hospitality experience.
The architectural design follows the basic principles of balance, proportion, symmetry, and the blending
of indoor and outdoor experiences.
Landscaping adds dimension on all levels, from the ground-floor courtyards and second-floor terraces
to the rooftop gardens. Bi-fold doors and metal louvered awnings that open onto the sidewalk as well
as a one-story loggia break up the building’s mass and give the gallery a more pedestrian scale. Large
windows on all floors fill the rooms with natural light.
The meticulously chosen exterior materials—including a grey steel trowel smooth plaster, cast-stone
caps at parapet walls, and the landscaping’s bluestone pavers and decomposed granite—give the
building a bespoke, residential feel.
The ground and second floors will feature artistic installations of home furnishings in a gallery setting.
These floors will also include an interactive RH Design Atelier, an interior design workspace where our
professional designers collaborate with customers to reimagine one room or an entire home. The third
2.f
Packet Pg. 81
Page 7
Simon.com 225 West Washington St. Indianapolis IN 46204 317.636.1600
floor will feature a walk-up pantry, barista bar, and a rooftop café with approximately 150 seats. The
hospitality experience on this floor will offer an ingredient-driven restaurant menu, a curated selection
of artisanal wines, and handcrafted coffees and pastries.
WILKES BASHFORD (W-B)
Situated at the north end of the Stanford Shopping Center, the proposed Wilkes Bashford retail building
is the first to greet patrons to the center. The California Modern aesthetic encompasses a total of 29,117
SF split between the main retail floor at 22,507 SF and a mezzanine ancillary space of 6,610 SF. A
raised central bay highlights the building entry, clad in floor to ceiling curtain wall and clerestory glazing
on the other three facades, providing ample daylighting to the retail store’s interior. In addition to ample
glazing throughout, materials of natural limestone, textured brick, warm hues of stucco, champagne
metals and warm woods provide a dynamic façade that is engaging to the pedestrian on all sides. The
primary street façade (east elevation) along El Camino Real showcases a large central show window
flanked by a tenant branded wall/signage at the Northeast and Southeast corners. Living walls are
incorporated into the East facing façade to soften the building and showcase the importance of
landscaping to the center. Wilkes Bashford’s long building mass (north and south elevations) is broken
down into scaled material planes highlighting individual show windows with canopies, large areas of
glazing, and extended open air trellises. The additional layer of greenery softens the building facade
with a living green wall, vertical and horizontal vines along the trellis, integral raised planting beds and
free-standing planters. The close integration of landscape allows the Wilkes Bashford building and
indoor/outdoor experience complementing the existing context of mature trees and landscaping. Lastly,
the western façade greets pedestrians walking from the shopping center with a large central building
entrance anchored by two large corner show windows. The visual connection is strengthened by site
improvements of trees, refined hardscape finishes, and ample amenities provide a comfortable walk
from the primary center to the Wilkes Bashford building.
BUILDING EE
Part of the Macy’s Men’s redevelopment of the Stanford Shopping Center, proposes an addition north
of the existing Building J, which is located immediately adjacent to the south of the Macy’s Men’s
building. The proposed new Building EE expansion allocates two new small retail shop spaces to be
constructed. The proposed retail expansion encompasses 6,749 SF, where one unit will be 3,373 SF
and the other unit 3,376 SF. The primary entrances to each tenant will flank their primary corners,
respectively, with a new table topped connecting roadway separating the expansion from the RH
development to the north. Primary building elements of warm brick, cast stone, generous amount of
glazing, dark steel metal canopies, textured stucco, and a living green wall provide ample façade
variation but a cohesive back drop to the retail promenade event space. Large patio areas flanking both
tenants further encourages engagement with programmed ‘pop-up’ uses of the event space providing
a positive pedestrian experience. In addition to the landlord provided finishes on the exterior, each
tenant is provided a level branding that allows for application of tenant specific finishes to the exterior.
2.f
Packet Pg. 82
Page 8
Simon.com 225 West Washington St. Indianapolis IN 46204 317.636.1600
SITE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
The project will also include site circulation improvements in the area of redevelopment. For vehicular
traffic, the project will construct a new enhanced internal connecting roadway, a new right-out only
driveway onto Sandhill Road, and redesigned parking areas to serve the proposed project. The
enhanced roadway will be a new east-west connector located between the Restoration Hardware and
Building EE and will provide vehicle access between the Wilkes Bashford Store and the shops to the
west of the Restoration Hardware store. The enhanced roadway will be 22-feet wide, be raised six (6)
inches higher to be flush with adjacent hardscape and pedestrian elements and be texture pavement
to reduce speeds. The project will construct a new un-signalized driveway onto Sandhill Road. This
driveway will be restricted to be a right-out only driveway. As mentioned previously, a net loss of 165
parking spaces will result from construction of the Restoration Hardware and Wilkes Bashford sites,
however, the parking within the project area will be redesigned to accommodate 10 ADA and 57 EV
conduit-only spaces.
The project area will include additional bike locations. The bicycle racks will be located within the
development area and the balance of the site to meet the city guidelines. A pending update to the
previously conducted bicycle transportation study will provide final locations, quantities and types of
racks needed to meet all guidelines.
The construction of the Wilkes Bashford building will include widening the sidewalks along El Camino
Real between Sand Hill Road and Pistache Place while meeting the requirements of the arborist report
for protection of existing trees in this area. The project will also include installing crosswalks at the
northwest and southwest corner of the Wilkes Bashford site for pedestrians crossing Shopping Center
Way and Pistache Place. The Southwest crosswalk across Shopping Center Way will be a table-topped
crosswalk to encourage pedestrian connection to the West entrance of the Wilkes Bashford building.
Additional crosswalks will be installed to connect RH to the parking lot east of the building.
Overall, the project will improve the site circulation in the project area and create clear and safe
pathways for patrons accessing this area of the shopping center through multiple modes.
2.f
Packet Pg. 83
ATTACHMENT G
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public
online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of
City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll to find “180 El Camino Real – Macy’s Men’s” 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:
http://bit.ly/180ECRMM
2.g
Packet Pg. 84
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10787)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/5/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Introduction of Objective Standards Project
Title: Receive an Introduction on the Objective Standards Project
and Provide Feedback to Staff
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB):
1. Receive an Introduction on the Objective Standards Project and provide staff with
feedback.
Executive Summary
Recently adopted state laws require local jurisdictions throughout California to provide
objective standards for housing development projects and apply streamlined review processes
to the entitlement of certain qualifying housing projects. Taken together as a package, these
laws emphasize the need for the City of Palo Alto to clearly articulate objective development
standards for housing projects.
To accomplish this, the City has entered into a contract with Lexington Planning to assist with
this effort. Lexington and staff will identify subjective aspects of Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code and to propose changes to the code and/or changes to the development review
process that allow the City of comply with state legislation.
As the Architectural Review Board reviews many new construction projects within the city,
notably housing projects, a shift from subjective standards to objective standards will
significantly impact the board. Therefore, staff wanted to begin the discussion of this project
early to gain feedback and input from the ARB, and to ensure the ARB has a full understanding
of the project, its origins, and potential impacts.
The staff report summarizes the state laws precipitating this project and describes the project
in greater detail.
3
Packet Pg. 85
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
Background
In 2017, the California Legislature passed a robust package of 15 housing laws, often referred to
as the “housing package” that intended to alleviate the state’s limited housing supply and
affordability crisis. The laws became effective in 2018. The housing package goals were
intended to lift barriers to housing production while creating critical funding for new affordable
housing development. In addition to establishing permanent funding sources, the housing
package included laws intended to accelerate housing development by creating transparent,
expedited, and streamlined approval process. Since 2017, the Legislature has continued to pass
laws aimed at increasing housing production, most notably SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act.
Senate Bill 35 (SB 35)
Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) requires any jurisdiction that has not met its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) goals to approve qualifying multifamily projects in a streamlined process. The
Regional Housing Needs Allocation is determined by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development; the State will determine the housing needs of that region by
determining the total number of new homes the Bay Area will need to build and at what
affordability level. In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments will distribute a
share of the region’s housing need to each city. Each city then updates the Housing Element of
its Comprehensive Plan to show sites where the new housing units can be built and the policies
and strategies to meet the housing needs.
Certain eligibility criteria must be met for a jurisdiction to be required to apply the streamlined
approval process outlined in SB 35. SB 35 applies to cities that have produced fewer units of
housing approved than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that
reporting period or did not submit required Housing Element Annual Progress Reports to the
state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for two consecutive years.
SB 35 will be applicable to cities who have not met its RHNA goals or have not submitted their
annual progress report. If cities are unable to meet its permitting goals in both lower and above
moderate RHNA and/or have not met their Annual Progress Report, the, jurisdictions are
required to apply a streamlined ministerial approval process to housing development projects
proposing at least 10% on-site low income units, meaning prices affordable to households
making less than 80% area median income. While, jurisdictions that made insufficient progress
only towards lower income RHNA numbers are subject to a streamlined approval process for
proposed developments with at least 50% affordability, or 50% of the total units are affordable
to low income households of 80% area median income or below. For reference, 80% of the
Area Median Income for a family of four is $103,900.
Currently, the City of Palo Alto is required to apply a streamlined process for projects that
propose 50% of the units as affordable to low-income households.
SB 35 enables an expedited review and approval process for eligible projects. Within 60 days of
a submittal application, local jurisdictions must confirm the project’s eligibility. In addition, the
3
Packet Pg. 86
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
jurisdiction must provide a list of all inconsistencies with objective zoning and objective design
standards at the time the application is submitted. As defined by Government Code 65400,
“objective zoning standards” and “objective design review standards” mean “standards that
involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by
reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both
the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.” If the
agency does not provide this list within the required timeframe, the project is deemed eligible
for streamlined, ministerial approval.
Housing Accountability Act Updates (including SB 167)
The Housing Accountability Act, first adopted in 1982, prohibits jurisdictions from reducing the
density, disapproving, or conditioning approvals of certain housing development projects if they
are consistent with objective general plan and zoning standards as they existed on the date an
application was complete.
The Housing Accountability Act applies to several types of housing developments:
1) 100% residential projects;
2) Transitional and supportive housing;
3) As of January 1, 2018, mixed used projects with at least 2/3 the square footage
designated for residential use.
Although Palo Alto has had relatively few applications for qualifying developments in recent
years, the City’s focus on housing development and recent amendments to the Act highlight the
importance of adopting objective standards.
Recent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act increased the burden of proof on
jurisdictions to justify denial, or reduction of a housing development project and reduced the
threshold that applicants must meet to have a project approved. Local jurisdictions must
provide written findings supported by a “preponderance of the evidence” to substantiate
disapproval. As defined by as defined by Government Code 65589.5, the local jurisdiction must
find that both of the following conditions exist:
• “The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public
health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the
project be developed at a lower density.
o A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was
deemed complete.
• “There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact
identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing
3
Packet Pg. 87
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density.”
On the other hand, a jurisdiction must conclude the project is consistent with the jurisdiction’s
objective standards in its general plan and zoning code if there is “substantial evidence” that
the project is consistent. In other words, an agency must find consistency with objective
standards (and therefore approve a project) as long as there is relevant evidence to support
that finding, even if the weight of the evidence is to the contrary.
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) or the Housing Crisis Act
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), the Housing Crisis Act, requires cities to create a preliminary
application process that allows developers to freeze the applicable development standards by
providing specific information regarding the proposed housing project. All jurisdictions must
compile a preliminary application checklist that specifies what is required to complete a
development application. The checklist must be made available in writing and on the
jurisdiction’s website. Jurisdictions cannot request the applicant provide additional items not
already on the checklist.
SB 330 also shortens the approval timeframe for housing projects from 120 days to 90 days
following Council certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and only 60 days for low-
income projects seeking tax credits or public funding. In addition, and most critically, as of
January 1, 2020, jurisdictions will be prohibited from imposing new subjective design standards
on housing developments where housing is an allowable use. The objective standards must be
available for the public and must be used as the uniform benchmark.
Discussion
The City of Palo Alto was approved for funding in the maximum amount of $310,000 under the
state’s SB 2 Planning Grants Program. The one-time grant allows the city to update documents
and processes that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. The city
was approved for funding for two projects:
1) the development of a homeowner toolkit to help facilitate more ADU production; and
2) prioritizing and identifying subjective standards in Title 18 that may need
modification to become objective.
The City has retained a consultant, Lexington Planning (Lexington), to facilitate the
implementation of the state laws described in this report. Lexington will review Palo Alto
Municipal Code Title 18, which governs the permitting of housing projects. Lexington will
identify subjective standards or criteria in Title 18 and recommend how the City can transform
them into objective criteria that allow the City to meet the demands of state law while
upholding local values. Lexington will focus on regulations addressing design and development
standards, parking requirements, performance standards and context-based design criteria.
3
Packet Pg. 88
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
Along with staff, Lexington will receive preliminary feedback from city staff regarding subjective
areas of the code and aspects of Title 18 that hinder the efficient review and entitlement of
residential development applications. Lexington will present preliminary findings to the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) in early 2020. The consultant will highlight areas of
subjectivity in the current code and identify options and recommendations where existing
language should be strengthened into objective standards.
Staff will include initial input from the ARB regarding areas in the city’s standards and criteria
that may need to be prioritized. Staff would like to receive ARB input on issues in the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to ARB’s review of multifamily residential and residential mixed-use
projects. Staff will take initial comments, but staff and Lexington will follow up with ARB at
three separate meetings with more details.
With recommendations and input from staff and the ARB, Lexington will prepare redlined
changes to Title 18, and revise other existing subjective context-based design criteria.
ARB Roles
Currently, the ARB is charged with the design review of all new construction, including
residential projects. As part of the ARB’s review process, staff reviews the project for
consistency with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, Architectural Review
Board Ordinance and other regulations and guidelines. During the ARB’s meeting and
presentation, the ARB makes a motion to recommend approval of the project, recommend
approval with conditions, continue the project to another hearing, or recommend denial of the
project.
In light of the state legislation, the Director cannot deny or downsize a residential project on a
subjective policy or design standards such as “compatibility” or “suitability.” Instead, in order to
deny or downsize a project that is consistent with all objective development standards, the City
must find, based on a preponderance of the evidence, a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards,
policies, or conditions as existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”
The City relies on its discretionary review process to maintain the community’s aesthetic
standards for residential development. As stated, going forward, projects will be reviewed
based on objective design review standards with consultation of the ARB to comply to current
state law. Staff will continue to be responsible for determining conformance with the objective
standards as part of the zoning compliance review. It is ARB’s role to be involved upfront to
ensure that the objective standards are comprehensive, in particular if there are any
modifications needed to the context-based design criteria to ensure they are objective
standards.
Environmental Review
3
Packet Pg. 89
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
This agenda item will not result in any action other than direction to staff to provide additional
information or prepare ordinances for future consideration and action. As a result, this agenda
item is not a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Hang Huynh, Senior Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575
Hang.Huynh@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• ARB - Lexington Scope and Schedule (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 90
1
STRENGTHENING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
This scope of work describes the project understanding, work plan, timeline, and estimated
fee proposal for preparation of objective standards and design guidelines related to
implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 35 and the Housing Accountability Act.
UNDERSTANDING OF THE ASSIGNMENT
This project proposes to clean up existing zoning standards and guidelines to facilitate
implementation of State law, clarify and illustrate objective standards for staff and applicants,
and in turn facilitate the development of housing.
SB35. Under SB35 (Government Code Section 65913.4), projects with at least 2/3
residential floor area, that meet certain affordability requirements, and which are consistent
with the City’s zoning and other “objective standards”1 are eligible for a streamlined review
process (90 to 180 days depending on the project size). No CEQA review is required and no
discretionary review (e.g., ARB, PTC or Council review) is permitted. Projects near transit
may take advantage of zero parking requirements.
HAA. The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5)
acknowledges the lack of housing as a critical problem in California. The HAA protects two
types of housing development projects: (1) developments that comply with objective
standards and (2) developments that contain a minimum amount of affordable housing
(either 20 percent of units for lower-income households or 100 percent of units for
moderate-income) even if projects do not comply with all objective standards.
Modifications made to the HAA in 2018 tightened the definition of “objective standards” to
state that a project must be considered consistent with objective standards as long as "there
is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude" that a project
complies. The 2018 revisions also increase the jurisdiction’s burden of proof. A local
1 The terms “objective zoning standards” and “objective design review standards” are narrowly
defined to mean “standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and
are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available
and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to
submittal.”
3.a
Packet Pg. 91
2
government that disapproves or reduces the size of a housing project must now meet the
higher "preponderance of the evidence" standard, rather than the "substantial evidence"
standard.
Code Changes. Currently, Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code contains a
range of objective standards (e.g., heights, FARs, parking standards, retail preservation
requirements) as well as subjective guidelines (e.g., context-based design criteria). Working
with City staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the consultants will help:
• Prioritize and identify a selection of subjective guidelines in Title 18 that should be
revised to become objective standards;
• Refine design guidelines by use/housing/district type;
• Add new objective standards to complement existing standards, guidelines, and
adopted policy goals;
• Add zoning graphics and an architectural review checklist to clarify objective
standards for staff and applicants; and
• Clarify the SB35 application process for applicants through preparation of forms and
submittal requirements.
The project will prioritize review and possible modification of residential standards and
guidelines. However, since SB35 and the HAA cover both residential-only and residential
mixed use projects, consultants will also address commercial regulations within the
residential mixed use context.
CEQA Review. The ordinance revisions are expected to be categorically exempt under
CEQA and/or covered by the CEQA documents prepared for the Comprehensive Plan and
SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. The project aims to facilitate implementation of State law.
The project does not propose to increase development beyond what was analyzed in the
Comprehensive Plan or the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan.
SCOPE OF WORK
Lexington Planning (LEX) and Raimi + Associates (R+A) will complete the following tasks.
A draft timeline of activities is identified in the sequence and timeline section below.
1. SB35 Checklists (LEX). Review eligibility and submittal requirements checklists,
already drafted by City staff. Revise as needed based on coordination with Planning
and other department staff members and to ensure consistency with State law. The
submittal requirements and any public notification requirements should be codified in
the Zoning Ordinance, or cross-referenced if adopted by resolution.
3.a
Packet Pg. 92
3
2. Title 18 Code Review (LEX, R+A). Review Title 18 sections where residential is
permitted or conditionally permitted and subsections affecting residential or
residential mixed use projects. Focus on district regulations addressing design and
development standards, parking requirements, performance standards, and context-
based design criteria. LEX will review all code sections listed below with a focus on
development regulations, parking, and performance standards; R+A will focus on
design standards and context-based design criteria. The deliverable will be an
informal redline annotated version of the existing code to be discussed with staff.
This review will include the following code subsections:
• 18.10 Low Density Residential (R-E, R-2 and RMD) Districts
• 18.12 R-1 Single-Family Residence District
• 18.13 Multiple Family Residential (RM-20, RM-30 and RM-40) Districts
• 18.16 Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and
CS) Districts
• 18.18 Downtown Commercial (CD) District
• 18.20 Office, Research and Manufacturing (MOR, ROLM, RP and GM)
Districts
• 18.23 Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing
and Planned Community Districts
• 18.30 Combining Districts:
18.30(A) Retail Shopping (R) Combining District Regulations
18.30(B) Pedestrian Shopping (P) Combining District Regulations
18.30(C) Ground Floor (GF) Combining District Regulations
18.30(J) Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Regulations
18.30(K) Workforce Housing (WH) Combining District Regulations
• 18.34 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District Regulations
• 18.40 General Standards and Exceptions:
18.40.130 Landscaping
18.40.180 Retail Preservation
• 18.52 Parking and Loading Requirements
• South of Forest Area (SOFA) design guidelines and development standards
(Chapters 4 and 5)
3. Coordination with City Staff (LEX, R+A). Regularly check in with long-range and
current planning staff, through phone calls and in-person meetings, to identify issues
3.a
Packet Pg. 93
4
and options for developing objective standards and to review draft ordinance
changes.
4. Issues & Options Memo (LEX, R+A). Based on review of Title 18 in Task 2 and
preliminary feedback from City staff in Task 3, prepare a memo outlining the key
issues and options. The memo will highlight areas of subjectivity in the existing code
and identify options and recommendations where existing language should be
strengthened into standards and clarified with graphics, and/or where new standards
may be warranted. R+A will address issues and options related to the context-based
design criteria, reorganizing design guidelines, and graphic communication. This
memo will be discussed and revised with City staff as part of Task 3 and then
presented to the ARB in Task 5 to help prioritize and draft the ordinance.
5. Architectural Review Board Meetings (3) (LEX, R+A). Work with the ARB over
three meetings to confirm key issues, prioritize standards and design guidelines for
modifications, and review the draft ordinance changes. LEX will prepare staff
reports, attachments, and presentations for each meeting.
• Meeting 1: Project overview; review Issues & Options Memo; listen to
feedback ARB: what is working, what is not working, priorities for standards
• Meeting 2: Review and feedback on preliminary draft ordinance components
and preliminary graphics
• Meeting 3: Review and feedback on draft of Ordinance, graphics and
Architectural Checklist
6. Draft Ordinance (LEX, R+A). Prepare redline changes and new or modified
standards for Title 18, including development regulations, parking, design, and
performance standards. Revise existing and develop new objective standards from the
subjective context-based design criteria. This scope assumes that the City Attorney’s
office will be responsible for preparation of the draft and final ordinance, with
significant input from consultants.
7. Objective Standards and Guidelines Graphics and Architectural Checklist
(R+A). Consolidate and revise context-based design criteria to identify design
standards and design guidelines by district and/or housing type. Prepare zoning
graphics to complement existing and/or new text standards in the Ordinance.
Develop a Design Standards and Guidelines Architectural Checklist for development
proposals and staff review. The budget estimates the hours needed to prepare and
revise graphics in response to staff and decision-maker feedback. However, a
3.a
Packet Pg. 94
5
contingency budget is identified for additional rounds of review or graphics
preparation beyond the base scope.
8. Planning & Transportation Commission Meetings (2) (LEX). Present ARB
recommendation to the PTC over two meetings. LEX will prepare staff reports,
attachments, and presentations for each meeting.
9. City Council Meetings (2) (LEX). Present ARB/PTC recommendation to the City
Council over two meetings (first and second reading). LEX will prepare staff reports,
attachments, and presentations for each meeting.
SEQUENCE & TIMELINE
A 13-month timeline for completion is outlined below, based on an August 1, 2019 notice to
proceed.
3.a
Packet Pg. 95
6
Timeline, By Task
Key Tasks/
Dates Code Review
Coordination
with Staff
Issues &
Options/Draft
Ordinance Prep
Ordinance
Revisions
Aug 2019
Sept 2019
Oct 2019
Nov 2019
Dec 2019
Jan 2020
Feb 2020
Mar 2020 ARB
Recommendation
Apr 2020 PTC Meeting
May 2020
Jun 2020 PTC
Recommendation
July 2020 First Reading
Aug 2020 Second Reading
ARB Meetings
3.a
Packet Pg. 96
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10897)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 12/5/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Minutes of October 17, 2019
Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October
17, 2019.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Draft minutes from the October 17, 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: October 17, 2019 Draft Minutes (DOCX)
4
Packet Pg. 97
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: Grace Lee.
Chair Baltay: Good morning. Welcome to the October 17, 2019, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural
Review Board. Staff, could we have a roll call, please?
[Roll Call]
Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Board Member Lee is excused today, so all four are here. Thank
you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Oral Communications
Chair Baltay: First item on our agenda is oral communications, if any members of the public wish to address
the Board on something not on the agenda. I believe we have one speaker card, for Mary Sylvester. Thank
you. You’ll have three minutes for your comments, please. And if you could please spell your name for the
record.
Mary Sylvester: Sure. My name is Mary Sylvester, like the cat. [spells name] I live at 135 Melville, which
has been my home for 42 years. My husband and I raised our two children there, and we and our grown
daughters consider it our family home. I have the dubious pleasure, though, of living equal distance
between Castilleja school and the Caltrain tracks, one-half block either way. We are looking at significant
diluting of our urban canopy with both these projects over the next 10 to 15 years. Castilleja is proposing
cutting down several old grove redwoods, along with mature oaks, to build an underground garage. Caltrain
and the City are looking at taking up a significant amount of foliage on Alma Street for construction of
whatever will be the new design for our high-speed railroad. One of the things I’ve always valued about
living in Palo Alto is our urban forest, and I thank all of you for your report to the City Council for the
October 21st meeting, particularly your comments on preservation of trees and inclusion of appropriate,
robust and ample landscaping in all development projects. You go on to state that recent development
trends towards underground parking and the replacement of single story structures with multiple story
buildings can cause conflict with the preservation of trees. I would like to say that one of the values of
trees is not only our community’s mental health, there are also measurable economic benefits for having
our urban forest. Talk to any real estate agent and they will tell you the value of having a mature grove
tree on your property. It also reduces the strain on infrastructure, and again, when we’re looking at
traumatic climate change impacts, to have that canopy is significant for all of our health and quality of life.
I have a number of other remarks, which I will make over the next few months. Thank you all for your
service, it’s deeply appreciated, and for your commitment to preserving our urban canopy. Thank you.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: October 17, 2019
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
4.a
Packet Pg. 98
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Baltay: Next item on our agenda is agenda changes, additions and deletions. Staff, do we have any
changes? No.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future
Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions
Chair Baltay: Followed by City Official Reports. Do we an ARB schedule, coming up? Tentative future agenda
items to discuss?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. As noted on the schedule, Board Member Lee knew that she was going to be absent
today. We also have, for future items, on November 7th, we will be talking about the Macy’s Men’s
redevelopment. That will be the third hearing. They are looking to take out the one building so that we can
possibly approve the rest. And then, we also will be talking about, there’s going to be a joint meeting with
City Council, so we will start to talk about topics that we want to speak with them about.
Chair Baltay: Do we have any subcommittee items pending? Beyond today?
Ms. Gerhardt: For today, we do have two subcommittee items, and then, for next hearing on November
7th, there would be the 565 Hamilton, would be on subcommittee. We will need people for that, as well.
Five-six-five, yes, just up the street here.
Chair Baltay: Oh, yes.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the housing with the small amount of office.
Chair Baltay: Right. I wonder if I could appoint board members Lew and Hirsch to that subcommittee?
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay, on to our first action item.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2342 Yale Street [18PLN00233]: 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
Chair Baltay: Number 2. It’s 2342 Yale Street, 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. Staff, do we have a report, please?
Emily Foley, Project Planner: Good morning.
Chair Baltay: Good morning.
4.a
Packet Pg. 99
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Ms. Gerhardt: And before Emily starts, I did want to introduce her as now a full-time employee. We’re
excited to have her on staff now. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Congratulations, Emily.
Ms. Foley: Thank you. This is the hearing for 2342 Yale Street.
Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Emily, could I halt you for one second? I’d like to do disclosures. I keep forgetting
that. Do we have any disclosures to make on the Board regarding this project? David?
Board Member Hirsch: No.
Chair Baltay: I’ll disclose that I visited the site. Osma?
Vice Chair Thompson: I visited the site when the first formal hearing happened.
Chair Baltay: Alex?
Board Member Lew: Yes, I visited the site this morning.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay, Emily. Thank you.
Ms. Foley: We’re here to do a second formal architectural review. This is a proposed duplex development
that proposes two attached units with a shared attached garage. They would demolish two existing
detached residential units, and in addition to the structures, there would be one shared uncovered parking
space, as is required in the RMD zone. Each unit are three bedroom units in size. This is located in College
Terrace, RMD Neighborhood Preservation Overlay. The surrounding neighborhood has a mix of single and
two family uses, as well as neighborhood commercial offices and multiple family residential. As we noted,
this is the second hearing. The first hearing was on February 21, 2019, and there were the following items
that were identified to be revised. That includes the parking and circulation, the materials, the size of the
unit as it related to the size of the lot, the definition of the entry features, landscaping, and open space,
which I will touch on how those were improved as we continue. On the left is the previous site plan, and
on the right is the proposed revised one.
Chair Baltay: Emily, I’m afraid it’s not showing on the screen.
Ms. Foley: Sorry. Got ahead of myself. The two units now have the shared garage in the middle, which
improved circulation in the original plan. There wasn’t necessarily appropriate back-up or turnaround space
for the parking spaces, especially the uncovered space. In the revised plans, the uncovered space is at the
end of the driveway, and the entrance to the garage area can be used for turnaround space. With regards
to the size of the units, the basement that was previously proposed has been removed, and the previous
basement included a bedroom and an office. Now, each unit is three bedrooms with no basement proposed.
With regards to circulation, the driveway has been widened and now fully paved with pavers, as opposed
to the Hollywood strip idea. Overall, the open space is better defined. The front unit has a defined front
yard area; the rear area has a defined back yard area. The perimeter has more full landscaping. And the
entrances, as you’ll see when I get to the elevations, have more formal porch areas. One concern from the
previous design was the materials. The applicant now proposes to have siding on the top floor and stucco
on the bottom, as well as adding natural wood trellis to the front and rear deck areas. The proposed
balconies are also more defined. In the previous design – which I included for reference later – the balconies
were in the middle and more or less walled off. This way, the front one has view of the street. The rear
one had limited views related to privacy, but it’s more of a useable space. These are the side views. As you
can see the garage is in the middle, and the side entries are more defined. That was one of the concerns.
The side entrance on the front unit is more of a secondary entrance. The one on the rear unit is more of a
primary entrance, so the door is facing towards the street, so you can’t necessarily see the door in this
view, but it’s to the right of the garage. These are the previous elevations, included for reference. In relation
4.a
Packet Pg. 100
City of Palo Alto Page 4
to the findings, the project is generally in compliance with the required findings. However, the landscaping
will need to be discussed because there is minimal California native species. However, most of the
landscaping proposed is low water use, and the reason for this is because, because it’s in the RMD zone
and there are adjacent single-family residential, it is required to be in compliance with the IR guidelines,
and the individual review guidelines call for tall screening landscaping. We could not identify a native
California species that would provide the appropriate level of screening. With regards to the CEQA, this
project is exempt. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you for your presentation, Emily. Next, the applicant will have an opportunity to
present, if you’d like to come up. You’ll have 10 minutes. If you could state and spell your name for the
record, please.
Amer Ismail: My name is Amer Ismail [spells name]. I think Emily pretty much covered all the modifications
we did. The only thing I think she probably missed was that now the windows are framed in wood siding,
in wood casing, in a white finish, both for the lower and upper windows and doors. And, we have increased
the pitch of the upper roof to match more closely with the surrounding buildings. We definitely made the
outdoor space more functional with the addition of the deck and trellises. And then, this wasn’t brought up
last time, but one of the things we’re planning to do is construct the building as an all-electric building, to
make it more efficient and environmentally responsible. That’s it. Everything else, she covered.
Chair Baltay: Do we have any questions for staff or the applicant? Alex?
Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I have two quick questions. These are nit-picky
items. I think the trash and maybe the mechanical units are shown differently in the landscape plan versus
the architectural site plan. I was wondering which one is correct.
Mr. Ismail: The architectural site plan would be the correct one.
Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. My second question is, I see that the City has a condition for above-
ground backflow preventers, which is sort of unusual. I think normally they’re underground. I was
wondering, what was the unique circumstances regarding that?
Mr. Ismail: I’m not familiar with what you’re talking about.
Board Member Lew: It’s on the… I’ll try to get to the page. It’s in your plans.
Mr. Ismail: Oh, yeah. [crosstalk]
Board Member Lew: … site plan.
Mr. Ismail: Yeah, that was a note from Public Works, for us to add it there. The backflow preventer is for
the domestic water, as well as the irrigation.
Board Member Lew: Okay. I think it’s just unusual for me to see the above ground on a house-like project.
Okay, so that’s coming from Public Works.
Mr. Ismail: Yeah, they’re small units. I think on the spec, the way the… A-12 shows them.
Board Member Lew: Yeah. Thank you for that. That’s all the questions I have.
Chair Baltay: Any other questions?
Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, I missed the resolution. Where does the trash live?
Mr. Ismail: It’s in the back.
4.a
Packet Pg. 101
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Board Member Lew: There’s the trash can here. In the landscape plan, they’re shown in a different place,
a different location.
Vice Chair Thompson: The landscape is correct?
Board Member Lew: No, the architectural site plan is correct.
Chair Baltay: Next, we have a…
Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, I have one more question.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Go ahead, David.
Board Member Hirsch: There’s an element next to the front door that’s showing, sort of a step. I don’t
understand what it is. Maybe you could explain?
Mr. Ismail: It’s like a decorative roof bracket, just to kind of define the entrance. We have a detail of it on
sheet A-11. Detail 4.
Board Member Hirsch: A.-11? Oh, okay. Alex spoke about the garbage storage. There’s an area where the
garbage is located? Is that on the site plan?
Mr. Ismail: Yeah, it’s right next to where the uncovered parking spot is.
Board Member Hirsch: What page, again?
Mr. Ismail: It’s A-1. Towards the back.
Chair Baltay: [inaudible]
Board Member Hirsch: From the back of the lot?
Chair Baltay: It says “trash enclosure” right there.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Chair Baltay: [inaudible] Just to be clear, the trash enclosure is shown correctly on the site plan, Sheet A-
1. It’s in the back right-hand corner of the property.
Mr. Ismail: Correct.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay. Are there more questions about the trash? All three of us see the same
thing.
Vice Chair Thompson: Not about the trash.
Chair Baltay: Osma, another question?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Do we have material samples?
Mr. Ismail: No, we don’t.
Ms. Foley: We had a previous one, but we didn’t have an updated one.
Vice Chair Thompson: And the change mainly was the siding, and everything else was the same?
4.a
Packet Pg. 102
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Mr. Ismail: Right. We have a picture of the siding on the elevations.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay.
Mr. Ismail: Just a basic square channel profile.
Vice Chair Thompson: And you mentioned that the windows, you said they were painted white, or black?
Mr. Ismail: They’re white. The frame of the windows is black, but the casing around them will be white.
Vice Chair Thompson: To match the siding and the stucco?
Mr. Ismail: Correct.
Chair Baltay: Okay. David?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. The windows, they’re awning windows? Is that what you’re showing?
Mr. Ismail: They’re mostly casement. The only awning are the large windows in the stairway, where the
bottom panel is an awning.
Board Member Hirsch: So, the horizontals in the other windows represent what? Muntins, or…?
Mr. Ismail: Yeah, exactly.
Board Member Hirsch: The casement is a double-hung casement window? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Ismail: No, just casement… Where, which…?
Board Member Hirsch: Casement, they’re going to turn in, out? What happens?
Mr. Ismail: They’ll turn out.
Board Member Hirsch: Turn out. Okay. Fine.
Mr. Ismail: They’ll swing out.
Board Member Hirsch: Swing out.
Chair Baltay: Are we all set there? I’d like to get to, we do have a member of the public who would like to
address us. Taylor Brady? You will have three minutes. If you could state and spell your name for the
record, please.
Taylor Brady: Yes. My name is Taylor Brady. [spells name] I’ll also say for the record that I’m a resident of
2342 Yale Street, and a licensed professional civil engineer in the state of California. My license number is
C-88968. Primarily, my biggest opposition to this project is its incompatibility with the City’s comp plan
provisions for the maintenance of affordable housing. In the staff report even, there’s a critical little bit of
information [inaudible]. It’s saying [reading]: 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. That’s pretty much the main point of that. There are precedent projects in the neighborhood,
actually one just down the block at 555 Oxford, which was completed in construction just earlier this year.
It was a duplex, somewhat similar to this. Instead of two three-bedroom units, it was a four-bedroom unit,
a two-bedroom unit. The four-bedroom unit went on the market for $12,000. The two-bedroom unit went
on the market for $6,000. The two-bedroom unit was rented out, and the four-bedroom is now listed at
$10,000 per month. If you contrast that with a unit like we have, which is currently rented out for $4,300
4.a
Packet Pg. 103
City of Palo Alto Page 7
per month, it’s really difficult to understand how destruction of perfectly sound housing that might require
some sort of retrofit constitutes maintenance of affordable housing, especially when in the RMD (NP)
provisions, the City specifically created the RMD (NP) zone in which this project falls, in order to, let’s say,
maintain visual and historic character of existing neighborhoods. And it was established to encourage the
retention of existing single-family structures, inclusive of 2342 Yale, and to foster to addition to existing
structures in lieu of complete demolitions. Especially given that the applicant has been given notice that,
you know, most of the residents will, at a point in 2020, complete their terms in the city of Palo Alto, which
is a perfect opportunity for renovations, I don’t see why the applicant shouldn’t be coming to the Board
with something compliant with an RMD (NP) provision, i.e. something that doesn’t demolish an existing
single-family structure, and something that instead maintains an affordable housing unit in the city of Palo
Alto. Thanks. That’s my time. Also, I have a petition signed by 39 neighbors of the College Terrace Residents
Association.
Chair Baltay: If you could give that to staff, please. And thank you for your comments. We have one
additional speaker card on this item. Pria Graves, please? I’m sorry, my eyesight…
Pria Graves: Pria Graves [spells name].
Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Ms. Graves: I live at 2130 Yale, a couple blocks down, and I’m very, very familiar with this piece of street.
I want to echo what my neighbor said about the purpose of the RMD (NP) zoning. It is an extremely dense
piece of the neighborhood, so we do have a lot of small houses in the area, and destroying, as he says, a
perfectly useable house that maybe needs some updating and renovation, and sending that all off to landfill
so they can build a big, new thing that strikes me as a bit stark compared to the neighboring houses. The
color image on the plans is sort of not really black and white, which is what has been described. I think if
you put a black and white house in that location, it will contrast too starkly with the neighboring houses,
which are in softer tones and are smaller. I’d like to push back on this one, as my neighbor has. I don’t
think it’s a good fit for the neighborhood. The design is not particularly bad for the neighborhood, and I
appreciate the fact that it has been shrunk, but I still think it’s perhaps too much, and too stark in
appearance. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. To the applicant, you have an opportunity to rebut the comments that have been
made, if you wish. Okay, if you’re not interested, it’s up to you, but we’re legally required to offer that.
Very well, then. Let’s bring this issue back to the Board. Perhaps, Alex, you could start us off. No? Thank
you, Alex.
Board Member Lew: Okay, so, we have… I think the public speakers have raised a good issue with the
RMD (NP) zone, and we’ve only had a couple projects come before the Board that have been presented to
demolish existing structures. I think we had one here downtown on Ramona Street, and my recollection is
there’s another one somewhere else. I can’t remember offhand, off the top of my head, where it is. The
RMD (NP) also does allow replacement of buildings, and it’s up to the Board, and there aren’t really any
standards for us to use, so it’s a tricky one. I would say, you guys are saying that the buildings could be
retrofitted, and I think that’s probably correct. It seems to me, though, that the buildings are only, like, the
existing building is only two feet away from the neighboring building. I’m guessing that that’s not built to
any fire standards. I think there’s probably water draining between properties, which actually is not allowed.
And then, the rear unit on the property is a soft story, like, a unit above a three-car garage, which is
considered, seismically, hazardous, typically. I don’t know all the specifics of the existing building, but
typically those are the ones that are the weakness in earthquakes. It’s a tough one. I can see your
argument, but also, I think the proposed project is an improvement to the neighborhood. I can recommend,
I’m thinking of recommending approval today. I would throw out to my Board members, I think there are
a couple things that I think could be better, and I think maybe there’s some odds and ends that should
come back to subcommittee. One is, I think where the garbage cans are, I think my recommendation would
be to make the driveway wider and lose a little bit of the landscaping. It’s hard to get the garbage cans
and the car and passageway through, the walkway through all of that, in 10 feet. You can do it, but it’s
4.a
Packet Pg. 104
City of Palo Alto Page 8
really tight. I think 11 is better. Two, I think we should have more information on the colors and finishes,
specifically for the wood trellis. I think it’s labeled as “natural.” I think I do want to see more information
about that. Those are pretty high-maintenance items. Also, possibly consider finishing the eves on the
project. And that’s a big “if,” I would say. I understand that it’s not normal in many new buildings, but it’s
fairly typical in older buildings. And then, I think lastly, I would say your bracket detail at the rear unit, I’m
not opposed to the bracket in the front unit, but I’m thinking that maybe the rear unit could have a better
porch design, a stronger design element to that. But I do like that you’ve tried to do the bracket and tried
to do something distinctive on your building. I think I can recommend the native plant, or the plant palette
as proposed. There are lots of native plants that grow 10 feet high, but they are also 10 feet wide, and it’s
hard to do skinny and tall. And under findings, I think under 2.e, I think I would recommend adding that
the project is removing two hazardous conditions on the site. One is the proximity of the building, the
existing building to its neighbors, and also the rear unit, which is a soft-story unit above a garage. That is
all that I have.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Osma?
Vice Chair Thompson: I had a question, actually, about one of your comments, about the driveway width.
Are you suggesting the entire driveway get wider, or just that top corner that’s shown on A-4?
Board Member Lew: I don’t have actual dimensions. If it actually is wider than…
Vice Chair Thompson: I think it’s only showing like that on A-4 because that’s where the trash goes, but…
Board Member Lew: I was looking on a different sheet.
Chair Baltay: A-4 seems to show an inconsistency. The driveway is wider, yet there is a tree planted in the
driveway.
Board Member Lew: Okay, well, okay, this is a detail. I would just say for my own house, I have, like, 11
feet, and there’s no landscaping, so it doesn’t look very good. And I need all of that to get the car and the
big trash can… The little ones are fine. It’s the big composting one that’s hard to fit in there without having
to move all the cars out of the driveway to get it through. If it actually can work with what is drawn, then
I’m okay with it, but I don’t have any dimensions, and I didn’t scale it.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Ms. Gerhardt: If I may clarify. The trash cans also need to be covered, and I think that might be missing
from here. There’s going to need to be at least a little shed roof or something. Otherwise, the trash cans
need to be in the garage because… For stormwater pollution prevention, is why that needs to be.
Chair Baltay: I’m sorry, so, the requirement is that trash cans be covered, and the applicant in front of us
doesn’t show them as being covered?
Ms. Gerhardt: That’s correct. We can add that as a condition of approval. I think that’s something that staff
can handle. We could handle it at a subcommittee also, if we needed to.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. David, do you care to bring us along in this discussion?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Please do.
Board Member Hirsch: First, I just want to say that this is a considerable change from what was shown to
us the first time, and I’m appreciative of that effort, however it was achieved, with staff, etc. In the
driveway, there’s the AC, from the front entry, kind of right there on the side wall, and I’m wondering if
4.a
Packet Pg. 105
City of Palo Alto Page 9
you could find a somewhat better place for that. The rear unit I think has a good location, and the front
unit does not. The element over the door, it strikes me as a strange piece of construction. I think it’s kind
of a leftover from an earlier scheme, as well, but I personally find it, you know, it’s a gesture that, I don’t
know if it’s really necessary. That’s my personal comment. You’ve answered the question about the muntins
of the windows, because I was inclined to look at those windows and say that they ought to be awning
windows perhaps, rather than casement windows. To have those muntins there, I’m not sure that they are
particularly useful. I understand they create a bit of scale, but if it’s a casement window, it could be just a
single pane casement window. Again, that’s my personal preference. I don’t know what the rest of the
Board would say. The garbage always at the rear of the lot, it’s always kind of a problem, but it looks like
there isn’t any real choice in the matter on that, so the enclosure is… And using that piece of the rear yard
seems like a reasonable idea. Stepping stones in the yard and access to the bicycle storage, those bicycle
storage elements are usually pretty ugly as well, so neighbors are going to have to see something that’s
just kind of an ugly box. But if that’s all that is available. I think we’ve seen, actually, in another project
that’s being proposed for us today, somewhat better-looking bicycle storage. I would like to see you try to
work on that a bit, just not an ugly box. The stucco and horizontal siding, I think is proportional, and a
good idea on this project, you know, to separate the two levels. There don’t seem to be any railings on the
porches. The porches are above grade, so, I don’t know if it’s required to have a railing on something that
is two steps up. Maybe with planning, you could consider that, because if the porches are going to have a
railing, that will be an element that we would probably want to look at. I’m a little concerned about lighting
areas around the garage. I didn’t ask you to address that before, but I think just having appropriate lighting
at the garage is kind of significant for cars coming in or going out. That’s a big garage door that covers the
two. It’s a nice-looking entry to a garage, and I’m assuming that that’s an automatic garage door? Okay. I
was even kind of wondering if it weren’t possible somehow to locate the actual garbage location within the
garage, but there probably isn’t enough space. I think if you looked at that, could consider that, it’s kind
of convenient to both units, rather than at the back of the lot, the way it was shown. Those are my
considerations of the design elements. In terms of the comments that were made earlier, that kind of
creates a dilemma for us, when a project is a, a sort of private sales of condos within a neighborhood that
has a certain character. I think it’s, just speaking in general terms, with this opportunity to speak about it,
it doesn’t seem to me that it’s always possible to answer those kind of community issues of affordability in
a project like this. I don’t think a project like this should be held to that kind of restriction, in answer to the
comment that was made. Neighbors will vary in the people who live there. You know, market rate people
versus people who are renting. I would see that it’s a big issue that both the Council and the City have to
address. I think they’re struggling with it at this point, but not successfully so far. Just a general comment
about what you are requesting of this particular owner. I don’t see it as legitimate in all cases. Marketability,
etc. And the prices of properties. That’s my comment.
Chair Baltay: Before we go on, David, staff had expressly asked us to address the issue of the non-native
plantings. Did you have an opinion about that?
Board Member Hirsch: I usually leave that to Alex.
Chair Baltay: Well, Alex expressed a non-opinion, so I’m wondering if the rest of us have a [crosstalk]. I
just want to be sure we’ve addressed something they clearly want us to focus on.
Board Member Hirsch: Well, as I say, I don’t look at it that carefully because I’m not knowledgeable enough.
I really leave it up to Alex, who is. But I see the effort to do landscaping here and create certain privacy in
the lot. I think it’s shown pretty well. I didn’t look at the detail of the plantings themselves.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. Osma?
Vice Chair Thompson: All right. Thank you for the application, thank you for your presentation, and thank
you to members of the public for voicing your concerns. It seems like this has been going for a while. I’m
noticing on this petition here, this is a date… This has kind of been since 2017. Well, you know, the design
in front of us is certainly an improvement from what we saw previously, so, in that sense, I wanted to
thank the applicant for listening to our feedback. I was actually ready to approve this project until we
4.a
Packet Pg. 106
City of Palo Alto Page 10
realized there was no material board. Unfortunately, that’s a really important part of determining whether
what you have here is appropriate for the neighborhood, and typically, we get that on the hearing day. In
other projects that have been quite expansive, much bigger than this project, that’s sort of been a deal-
breaker. Because this project is smaller, I guess I would like to ask the rest of my board how they feel
about not knowing what materials are going to be here, if we feel like it could be a subcommittee item or
if it’s so important that maybe it can’t be. Site planning-wise, I do think it’s an improvement. It’s nice that
it sort of has a little bit of distance from neighbors. Landscaping, again, having sort of… I know Alex has
more knowledge about landscape than I do, but if it seems that these plantings that are non-native are
typical for screening that are low use… I saw there were a few medium water usage plants, but if they’re
mainly low, then that’s okay. Maybe we can review the mediums as well, separately. That’s sort of a
dilemma. I think otherwise, everything else that we’ve asked has been satisfied. If we’re going to talk about
the bracket, about the entry for the roof, I’ll echo Board Member Lew’s note, that I do think it’s nice to add
that level of detail. Any kind of small-scale detail is really important for a residential neighborhood like this.
I’ll just leave it at that. I’m sort of conflicted at this moment.
Chair Baltay: Thanks, Osma. I share your comments. I came into this meeting thinking this project was a
slam dunk, and not seeing the materials board is just a big issue for us. I’m afraid that we start to set a
precedent that isn’t a good one. I’ll say the same comment about the native plantings, that I’m sympathetic
to the need to get good privacy planting. I’m in support of our code, which says that we need to follow
native plantings, and I think that that’s a pretty wide-open door. If you just start to say that native plants
can’t be used for privacy purposes, then half the applications we see are going to be looking for exceptions
to that rule. And that concerns me deeply. That said, I do hear what Alex is saying about it being difficult
to get some of these privacy requirements met with, when the planting set are native. That led me to start
looking at the balcony in the back, on the second floor. It’s a fairly generous-sized balcony, which is 20
feet, 15 feet from the back property line, which across that fence is the neighbor’s back yard, albeit a small
yard, but their only yard. My understanding in Palo Alto is that we take those privacy concerns seriously,
and the only mitigating factor in this case is that they are proposing to put a bunch of strawberry trees
back there to get privacy. It’s a real conflict, again. It’s a tight, confined neighborhood, but this balcony, I
believe, will definitely impact the privacy, or require us to use non-native species for landscaping, which is
a conundrum. Well, I guess we have to come up with an answer. I’m uncertain where to go with that. My
opinion is that the non-native landscaping is going to be fine in this case. I don’t think they have a choice.
I think the privacy issues will be okay with the non-native landscaping, so that will resolve itself that way.
The material board is a significant issue, and I’m afraid we can’t approve it without the materials board,
without seeing the full application here, at least in my opinion, so I think that just pushes us on to getting
one more hearing with the full application in front of us. I’m sorry. Unless my colleagues feel that we should
put this to a subcommittee. I’m just very concerned about precedent here. Does anybody else have any
opinions on those issues? Alex?
Board Member Lew: Just some follow-up. One, on the plant finding, native plant finding. Several of the
plants, I would put in the category of wildlife-friendly, meaning they have berries, or they have flowers
that are attractive to bees, so that would be the strawberry trees on the back. Also, the hedge, the prunus
Carolina. And also, I think pittosporum tobira, which is like an Australian or New Zealand plant. But that’s
actually fairly desirable by bees, and it’s fairly fragrant, too. And it’s used widely. These plants are all used
frequently in our plant palettes that we see in town. I think they are fairly normal plants. And then, I think
the materials should come back to subcommittee. To require a sample board for, like, wood or stucco, to
have a whole third hearing for it, seems really excessive to me. What precedent are we…? We require all
these things, and we can do it on a case-by-case basis. It doesn’t mean the next application is going to
blow off the application requirement. I mean, it just seems crazy to me. We’re supposed to be trying to
encourage housing, improving site conditions. I don’t know. I just don’t see what we get out of it. Do we
not know what wood siding looks like?
Ms. Gerhardt: Just from a staff perspective, I do appreciate, you know, we should have a materials board
here. We certainly will make sure that’s known to all of our applicants in the future. I mean, that’s already
been the case, but we will reemphasize that because it is an important thing. I think regarding the planting,
as Board Member Lew said, you know, we certainly emphasize the natives, and where we can’t do the
4.a
Packet Pg. 107
City of Palo Alto Page 11
natives, then we start emphasizing the habitat quality and the low water use of those plants. Those are
the different, sort of levels of preference that we try and go through. All of these projects are also reviewed
by the Urban Forestry team, so it has already sort of made it through their review. We just ask your opinions
on that, to see if there’s anything that we have missed. We do appreciate, you always find things we’ve
missed. Just the trash enclosure that we will get fixed up. But I do agree that subcommittee seems to be
the right level for this type of project.
Chair Baltay: Osma, any further thoughts about the material board?
Vice Chair Thompson: I see Board Member Lew’s point. I think it’s true on a case-by-case basis, especially,
like I mentioned, in gigantic, big projects where this material is getting used everywhere, it’s really
important to know what it is. Because it’s smaller, I think a subcommittee would work. And I don’t know,
it’s not that we don’t know what wood siding looks like, it’s just it’s always so subjective. Sometimes you’ll
see something that really doesn’t work, and it’s good to know that beforehand, before knowing that we’re
approving this. I’d be open to doing a subcommittee for materials and the trash enclosure.
Chair Baltay: David? What do you feel about the material board?
Board Member Hirsch: I agree with previous sentiments about it going to committee. I don’t see a small
project like this having to be held up for those elements. But, of course, I think we need a materials board.
As pointed out, that even from the community comment, that some of the colors are somewhat harsh, so
there’s good reason to have a board to respond to that, to see just what those colors are. You can’t do it
on these kind of drawings.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so…
Board Member Hirsch: But I have some other comments that my Board, the Board didn’t talk to the idea
of the muntins. A lot of the detail here, the bicycle storage rack, which I commented on, the passage of
the bicycles to the front of the house, which I really didn’t mention in detail, require some additional lighting
so that you can get a bicycle in and out of that area. And the paving, I’m not so sure that the paving is
going to be conducive to moving bicycles back and forth from that particular area. I think there’s a lot of
little detail issues that should be addressed in our next meeting, and would hope that you would recognize
some of those, including some of the comments I made about muntins and other details within the drawing,
that don’t seem to me to respect the purpose of the drawings. I say that, saying that I think it is a vast
improvement from the earlier design, and respects the neighbors in its scale and its proportions, and the
proportions of the building itself are quite pleasing. I think it will fit in well in this community as a general
design, so I’m not saying that I think anything is really terribly wrong with it, except some of those details
mentioned. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: David, we’re looking for a motion, and what I’ve heard so far is that the Board will be in
support of sending this to subcommittee with a recommendation for approval, asking them to re-look at
the trash area to make sure you can get pedestrian passage past it; to provide a material and color board
with suitable materials. There’s two comments about Finding 2.3, which I don’t think anybody has an issue
with. Do you want to try to crystalize what your other thoughts are, so we can all get a sense…? I’m afraid
I feel it’s a little bit vague, and I want to understand more specifically what we’d like them to do. Can you
do that?
Board Member Hirsch: Motion?
Chair Baltay: Well, just, how are we going to tell them about the muntins in the window, for example?
What is it we’re trying to say?
Ms. Gerhardt: I can list out some items, as well, because I did have, from Board Member Lew, there were
details on the wood trellis.
4.a
Packet Pg. 108
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Ms. Gerhardt: Is that…?
Board Member Lew: I would put that in with finishes. Colors and materials?
Ms. Gerhardt: With colors and materials?
Board Member Lew: Yes.
Ms. Gerhardt: Colors and materials for the wood trellises, as long as everything else. There was a question
about finishing the eves?
Board Member Lew: That was to the Board.
Board Member Hirsch: Mm-hmm.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so that’s one possibility.
Vice Chair Thompson: I could be in support of that.
Chair Baltay: For what it’s worth, gang, this is basically a house, and this kind of detailing is stuff that you
generally leave to the owner, the applicant, the architect, to work through how they’re going to finish the
detail over the front door. And I understand that it’s important sometimes, but is it really important in this
case, to this design? That’s the question I ask you before we dive in too deep on this. I think the things
that we did mention are important, the trash location and stuff, but I want to give them a really clear
direction to go if we want additional changes on the exterior.
Board Member Lew: On the windows, I don’t support removing the muntins because there are places where
they are trying to do clear on the upper part and opaque on the lower part, for privacy to the neighbors.
So, you do need somewhere to break it. They also showed, in the previous scheme, they had windows
without any, and I think the Board thought it was too out of place in the neighborhood. I think this one fits
in better. Also, the other issue is that we had bedroom window requirements, and awning windows don’t
comply with that code requirement.
Board Member Hirsch: I think I went along with casement windows. I wasn’t suggesting awning windows.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I didn’t hear anything about awnings. I’ve heard questions about the window muntins,
about the trellis and brackets over the doors, and about the location of the air conditioning unit, and
something about the bicycle location parking, David.
Board Member Hirsch: No, it wasn’t.
Chair Baltay: I’m sorry.
Board Member Hirsch: It was just the quality of a box, of an element on the side of the building. It could
be detailed…
Chair Baltay: Oh, for bicycle storage on the back side, yeah. Okay. More detail on that.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think that’s an off-the-shelf product. The bicycle storage. I don’t think it’s an
architectural box, as such. I’ll also echo Board Member Lew. I’m not in favor of removing the muntins. I
think it brings a necessary scale to the building.
4.a
Packet Pg. 109
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Ms. Gerhardt: I think on the bike locker, it is located behind the garage there, but there is a back door to
the garage. I’m assuming maybe people would travel that way, but they could go around the house, as
well. I mean, there’s no harm in bringing back some details on that, because I think you talked about
lighting as well. That would certainly be a good thing to look at.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Who wants to summarize this in a motion? Alex or David, one of you. Alex?
MOTION
Board Member Lew: I’ll make a motion, that we recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the
staff report, with the following additions. One is that it return to subcommittee with the trash enclosure
roof. Two, that we amend Finding 2.e. to mention the existing hazard on the site, which is the proximity
of the existing building to the neighbors, as well as the soft-story construction of the rear unit. Three is for
the colors and materials board to return to subcommittee. Four, that consideration be made to the bike
lockers, access and lighting to the bicycle lockers.
Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second.
Chair Baltay: Okay, moved and seconded. David, do you have any friendly amendments you want to
squeeze in there? I want to be sure you have a chance to put your things through.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, yeah, thank you. I agree with this, but disagree with the muntins. However,
I caved in.
Chair Baltay: You don’t have the support on that one, David. But if you’d like to fit something in about
some of these other items you mentioned, please do so now.
Board Member Hirsch: I’m satisfied.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so, the motion is moved and seconded. Before we vote, I want to come back and
address the issue two members of the community brought up, about affordable housing. I don’t think that
should affect this project, but this is a good chance for us all to say a piece if we’d like to. And I would like
to say that I think it’s a real shame that we’re tearing down perfectly good housing – that’s what this is –
just to make place for the exact same amount of housing that’s just more expensive. It’s not an issue the
Architectural Review Board can address. It’s an issue the City Council is trying to address, as Board Member
Hirsch said. And I think it’s important that we express a strong opinion, at least, about it. If anybody else
would like to mount something, now is the time. David?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I like the fact that you’ve made a consideration to rehabilitation when it’s
possible. It probably was possible here. Maybe didn’t pan out monetarily for the site, but we can’t go into
that, as you noted. But I appreciate the fact that you added that piece to that discussion.
Chair Baltay: Anybody else?
Vice Chair Thompson: Not knowing the full details of the existing structure, it’s hard, personally, to form
an opinion that this shouldn’t have been demolished. There could be other things that we don’t know,
reasons, seismic reasons, other reasons why this building shouldn’t stay up. In that sense, I don’t want to
express an opinion whether this building should be demolished, or not. Affordable housing is definitely
something that City Council is trying to make a priority, and that is, you know, there are a lot of theories
on how to amend prices and such, so, I’m all in favor of trying to make Palo Alto more livable. But it is a
case-by-case analysis. Like you guys said, it’s not the purview of our board to know that.
Board Member Lew: I think maybe at the Council, Planning Commission and Council level, they could review
the RMD (NP) zoning requirement. If the intent is really to retain it, then we need to sort of put in a better
mechanism for reviewing existing structures, and we don’t really have that in place now. We don’t really
4.a
Packet Pg. 110
City of Palo Alto Page 14
know what to do because we’ve had no information and no way to judge it. Perhaps we need to, the
Planning Commission could review it and see if there are other cities that are doing something to foster
retention of existing buildings that are not historic.
Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you, Alex, and everybody. With that, we have a motion on the table, moved and
seconded. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Very well. The motion carries 4-0.
MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-0.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. We will take a five-minute recess at this point. Thank you.
[The Board took a short break.]
Chair Baltay: Okay, we’re going to bring the Board back into session, please. Next item is number 3, an
action item. However, before we start that, I’d like to put out to everyone, we have a scheduled earthquake
drill at 10:17 this morning. What we will do is, the first half of this project where we take all the testimony,
statements from the applicant and such, and then, we’ll just break for a recess while the earthquake drill
is going on, so we can all comply with the safety requirements. It’s just something that’s been scheduled
on us.
Vice Chair Thompson: Do we know where we go for the earthquake…? Or do we just…? Is it duck and
cover?
Ms. Gerhardt: No, so, we do need to vacate the building. Staff will be headed towards the library. That’s
where we need to meet up. I just need to make sure all of you get out of the building, but if you want to
go to coffee after that, you probably could.
Chair Baltay: Any idea, Jodie, how long the drill lasts, typically?
Ms. Gerhardt: It’s usually only, you know, maybe 15 minutes or so. It’s just a matter of getting everyone
out of the building, and then, getting everyone back, is usually… The fire department usually does a quick
scan of the building, and that’s about it.
Chair Baltay: Is it going to be possible to establish a time to re-adjourn in advance, do you think? I hate to
see us start without somebody here, or be waiting. We just don’t know, do we?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, there’s no perfect timing. You could say half an hour and probably be safe, but that’s
a fair amount of time, too.
Chair Baltay: I’m going to say that we’re going to adjourn 20 minutes after the drill starts at 10:35. All else
being equal, unless we can’t get into the building. Just so everybody has their own [crosstalk].
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so, we’ll be back at 10:35.
Chair Baltay: It’s only a 20 minute break, essentially.
Vice Chair Thompson: Can we get some…? Is duck and cover not a thing anymore? Do we not…? I don’t
actually know what we do with the drills. Is there, like, a siren that goes off, and then we all go?
Ms. Gerhardt: There’s a siren that goes off, and we need to vacate the building, yes.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
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
4.a
Packet Pg. 111
City of Palo Alto Page 15
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
Chair Baltay: Action item number 3 is a public hearing regarding 3585 El Camino Real, 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. At that, do we have any disclosures? Alex?
Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday.
Chair Baltay: Osma?
Vice Chair Thompson: I visited the site this morning.
Chair Baltay: I have visited the site as well. David?
Board Member Hirsch: I visited the site this past week.
Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Could we have a staff report, please?
Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, thank you. Good morning, I’m Sheldon Ah Sing, contract planner.
The applicant has brought in a model to observe. Also, there is a materials board. There is an updated
actual color materials there that are essentially detached from the board. With that, I’ll start my
presentation. This is a formal review of a development of a three-story mixed-use building with
approximately 2,500 square feet of office space, three dwelling units, on a 6,000 square foot lot. The
request includes a major architectural review and a variance. No recommendation is sought at this time
because we are in the middle of doing environmental clearance of the project. The site is a corner lot that
backs into an alley, a service alley, and it’s parallel with El Camino Real for about three blocks. Two other
sides of the property are streets, El Camino Real and Matadero. The site was formerly an automobile use
site and is subject to remediation for hazardous waste, although that has been cleared by the County of
Santa Clara. Generally, buildings in the area are one to two stories. There’s vacant property across the
street, so it is an area that is in transition. [inaudible], but this is truly one area. The Comprehensive Plan
and zoning allows for mixed use. One thing, though. If they do mixed use, then they have to do multi-
family, which under the definition is a minimum of three units. This is a photo of the site from the rear
perspective, looking at the service alley and Matadero. This shows the service alley in the context of
adjacent residential, is multi-family. There are some constraints that the site has, and I think this is a good
photo. It will get to some of the various issues that we want to talk about later on. You can see there the
overhead utility line, and there’s a guy wire that comes onto the property. You can see really how small
this site is. It does include a major architectural review, which is demolition of the existing former structure
that is set back pretty far on the property. Dwelling units are broken down into two one-bedroom units and
one two-bedroom unit. The office space is located on the first and second floor. Residential is on the second
and third floor. Parking is provided by two means. One is a mechanical puzzle lift that’s under the building,
within the building, at grade, and also, covered service parking in the rear. There is a single driveway off
of Matadero Avenue that would lead to the mechanical parking, as well as the covered parking space. The
variance is for the perimeter parking lot landscaping. We’ll go a little bit into that. There’s a five-foot
requirement for that, and the project can’t meet that as proposed. This just shows the site plan. Fifty
percent of the site essentially is covered by the building and the other half is what supports the building
with respect to the driveway, the covered parking spaces, the electrical transformer, the covered trash and
recycling. There’s also some ADA surface parking requirements, and that access has to be paved in front
of the parking spaces. All that takes up some of the potential areas for landscaping. You’ve got also the
covered bike locker there that’s along the service alley. This project does use a contemporary design. I’ll
let the applicant go into that in more detail. It is a floor above other structures in the area. It also helps to
4.a
Packet Pg. 112
City of Palo Alto Page 16
look at Sheet A3.11 in your packet. That includes a context study with a three-dimensional proposed
building, shows kind of how this would be in relation to everything else in the area, as it currently stands.
This is your elevations of the building. It shows the adjacent building there that is one story above. Again,
this is from Matadero, elevation. It’s taken from the gas station across the way. And then, you have the
service alley view here. And this is the part that there is some concern because of the perimeter
landscaping. The requirement is five feet, so there are limitations there. This is taken of the opposite side.
You can see the cut-through of the adjacent building. That’s pretty much at the [inaudible] setback. These
are the findings for variance, and these are typically for something that is unique about the property that’s
causing the constraint, that’s not imposed by other properties in the area. A classic example is an irregular
shape lot, or you have a creek that runs through it, or a large boulder. In this case here, really, the issues
are, we have a small lot. There are other smaller lots within the area, but if you look at what is there now,
and you have to quantify it, that it was an automobile use, I don’t think you could put that back today, just
given everything else you’d have to do. You could certainly take into consideration the applicant needs
something that will pencil [phonetic] out, probably not something that the City really looks like, but the
consideration when you look at these properties [inaudible]. That’s a consideration of a small lot. It is
bound by streets or alleys on three sides, so there are actually setbacks there. The service alley in the
back, you have overhead utilities, and you’ve got a line that comes down onto the property, so there are
some limitations with respect to the types of vegetation that you can put underneath those overhead lines.
The electric department is not going to allow tall trees or trees with canopies that have to be maintained
or worry about. Other issues you have, these trash enclosures have become really significant structures
over time because of water quality regulations in and of itself, infrastructure that we have to look at to be
compatible with the building. There are space requirements required for maintenance of these, including
the electrical transformer, bicycle parking – all these things put into a site where, if you did have a multi-
family project, you have to do at least three units, so that adds parking. So, they have a lot of
considerations. There certainly are things that we’re open to hearing from the Board regarding how to get
out of this, if the variance is something that’s not supported. I did bring that up to the applicant in terms
of potentially moving the footprint of the building five feet towards El Camino Real. Maybe that might
provide some benefit there. They would have a smaller office footprint, for instance. CEQA is currently
underway. We are anticipating a mitigated negative declaration, so the next time we come back, I probably
will have some draft of that. In conclusion… We do want to come back to, we want to complete the CEQA
document, come back to the ARB, and we want to consider the proposed project and provide feedback on
the project design to staff and applicant, and then, continue to a date uncertain. With that, I conclude my
presentation. The applicant does have a PowerPoint or a PDF presentation. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sheldon. Any questions for staff? I have two, if I could, Sheldon. One is, I want
to understand clearly, staff supports the request for a variance, the rationale being that the property is
bounded on three sides by drive aisles, and that’s the reason that the property is unique? I just want to
understand clearly what the logic is.
Mr. Sing: I think we’re not entirely… I wouldn’t say we’re entirely support… I mean, we’re open to finding,
maybe some other solutions that we can get out of a variance, but those are just some things that we
noted that are potential means for considering the basis of approval of a variance.
Chair Baltay: And then, maybe this is later, for the applicant, but what I’m seeing on the site survey is the
public utility line seems to cross the private property, and yet, I don’t see any mention of an easement on
the private property. Are you aware of that kind of conflict, or am I just missing something here?
Mr. Sing: I’d have to look into those.
Chair Baltay: You’re not aware of any…?
Mr. Sing: Not off the top of my head, no.
Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, the applicant, would you care to make a
presentation? You will have 10 minutes. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please.
4.a
Packet Pg. 113
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Yan Sun, KSS Management: My name is Yen Sun. I am representing KSS Management, one of the owners
for this…
Chair Baltay: Could you please spell your name for the transcriber?
Ms. Sun: [spells name]
Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Ms. Sun: Good morning, everyone. I’m representing KSS Management, and I’m very excited to be here. I
also feel very lucky to have my architect here with me. We worked really hard, almost two years, to get to
this point, and there are so many different revisions of the design, with variance, and with design, the size
of the home, the property. We also feel really lucky to have Sheldon to be really supportive and responsive
when we have any questions. As you see, this part of El Camino Real is really old, and a lot of businesses
looks like not taking very good care of. I hope our project is the new look of the neighborhood and bring
value to the neighborhood as well. I really appreciate your support, and hopefully we can work together to
make the community better and better. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Good morning.
Joseph Bellomo, Architect: Good morning. My name is Joseph Bellomo. I’m an architect on University
Avenue. I’ve been in this town for more than 40 years. We’re just… Pratima Shah will be talking. She’s the
project architect. We are just thrilled to be working on this project. I’ve designed quite a few projects on
El Camino, shopping centers, hotels, mixed use. We actually did one of the first mixed-use buildings in
Sunnyvale. If you have any questions for me, please let me know. And then, Pratima will be presenting.
Thank you.
Pratima Shah, Architect: Good morning, ARB members and city officials. My name is Pratima Shah, and as
the project architect, it’s my pleasure to present the design proposal for 3585 El Camino Real. I just wanted
to mention, the design proposal that you see today is not an overnight solution, but it has evolved after a
work of over one and a half years. We did consider and explore different programs, worked with consultants
and city officials, to fulfill all the requirements of the City of Palo Alto and building codes, and make the
project viable for our clients on that 6,000 square foot micro [phonetic] site. With the possibility of one-
story office building, two story office building with on-grade parking, three-story mixed-use building with
parking on grade, and the traffic demand management plan to avoid conflicts, all other options were ruled
out because they were not able to fulfill the code requirements, and needed a variance or are not financially
feasible. The project has become feasible only after implementation of housing incentive plan, so we are
taking advantage of the incentives the City of Palo Alto is offering. The site is located in CN District and
Barron-Ventura area, with 60 foot frontage on El Camino Real and 105 foot on Matadero Avenue, served
by alley [inaudible]. The property is neighboring two-story commercial building on El Camino Real, a gas
station on Matadero Avenue, and a residential complex and alley. As mentioned in the South El Camino
Design Guidelines, in Barron-Ventura area, the buildings do not have well-executed architectural design.
This proposed building do not have any prominent architectural design context. We take this as an
opportunity to revitalize the corner as neighborhood node, and enhance visual appearance. Here are
pictures of the context, and it shows the alley. We have seen those as presented by Sheldon. The program.
We proposed three-story mixed-use building with 1,250 square foot office space on first floor, 1,000 square
foot office and a 12,000 [sic] square foot one-bedroom residence on the second floor, and two residential
units on the third floor. The one-bedroom residence on the third floor is around 900 square feet, and two-
bedroom is 1,200 square foot. The proposed office square footage is 2,500 square foot, which is 600 square
foot less than the permitted, and the total residential square foot is around 4,200 square foot, which is, I
strongly want to mention, is 5,000 less than proposed [inaudible] residential square footage. The site plan.
The planning and siting of previous functions in the building on site create an intimate sense of order, and
provide a desirable environment for occupants. Pedestrian activity and commercial uses are located in front
along El Camino Real, and based on the entrance from Matadero Avenue, the service is located along the
service alley. The building is set back four feet from the property line on El Camino Real and five feet on
4.a
Packet Pg. 114
City of Palo Alto Page 18
the Matadero side, creating the desirable 12-foot sidewalk. The layout eliminates existing 30-foot
[inaudible] entry and a curb cut on El Camino Real. It creates a cohesive street scape, as well as promotes
pedestrian [inaudible]. The entry to the ground floor office space is on the corner of El Camino Real and
Matadero Avenue, while the entrance to the stairway up to the second and third floor is on Matadero
Avenue side. The pedestrian entrance to the building is located towards the corner of El Camino and
Matadero, while vehicular entrance is on the Matadero side, providing good separation between pedestrian
and vehicle environment. A 12,050 square foot office space on ground floor is enclosed by 10 foot glass
door fronts on El Camino, maintaining the rhythm of the existing storefronts on the neighboring buildings.
The building requires 14 car parking spaces, which are provided in the rear half corner, rear half part of
the building. Out of 14 cars, 11 car parking spaces are provided on two level mechanical car lift system,
manufactured by Klaus Parking. The residents and employees will have assigned car parking spaces, with
charging stations if required. There will be three covered car parking spaces on grade, including van
accessible parking space, and a charging station. Short-term bicycle parking provided near the ground-
floor office building entrances as desired, and long-term bicycle parking provided towards the alley. The
trash enclosure is located on the northwest corner of the property, with on-site access for the residents
and access from the alley for the trash management company. There is existing utility pole on the northwest
corner of the property, with a guy wire support and overhead power lines along the alley. On the second
floor, the proposed office space is on the El Camino Real side, and one-bedroom residence on the alley
side. The office has two landscape terraces, which can be used as break-out [phonetic] spaces and informal
meetings. We are proposing a vertical screen garden in the balcony of the office of El Camino Real. The
vertical garden screen can assist of a metal cable trellis, which will form a guide for the creepers. This
garden screen has many advantages, and it will filter natural light, will act as a passive measure is reducing
solar gain from southwest façade. It will mitigate noise and dust from six-lane El Camino Real. It will create
beautiful view from inside and outside and will make urban space more livable. The one-bedroom residence
on the second floor has covered landscape terrace and a balcony. Open floor plan, northeast frontage,
operable doors and windows, and landscaped private terraces will make this unit desirable and livable
space. The third floor has two residential units, two-bedroom residential units facing El Camino Real, while
one-bedroom residence is facing the alley. The two-bedroom residence has been set back from El Camino,
creating beautiful terraces for outdoor use and more privacy for interior spaces. Now, we’ll go through the
pictures of the model, showing different views. The building design comprises of overhangs, recesses,
balconies and terraces, which articulate the building façade. The play of light and shadow enhances the
building composition, while 3form cladding accentuates the exposed concrete. The natural landscape
elements like garden screen wall make the building more organic. The building has exposed structural
composition. The first and second floor will have reinforced concrete structure system, and second and
third floor slabs will be of reinforced concrete. The mechanical system will be placed on the roof. The
building material is composed of sustainable building materials. Primary material of construction is concrete.
The proposed concrete mix consists of 70 percent replacement of cement with slag, which is a byproduct
of iron extraction process. It makes concrete mixture more stronger and more impermeable to water. The
environmentally-friendly, as it reduces the use of cement, which is significant emission polluter during the
refinement process. 3form coating XT is a human-made, renewable polycarbonate material. It is
weatherable, durable, long-lasting, and recyclable translucent building material. The cladding avoids the
paint on the exterior of the building, and thus reduces the required building maintenance. It also has a
strong ultraviolet stabilization technology and maintains the aesthetic of the project. To conclude my
presentation…
Chair Baltay: Could you finish this up, please? We’ll give you one more minute, okay?
Ms. Shah: Concluding, yes. I just wanted to mention that after working for one and a half years on this
project, we, the owners and architects, are pleased and satisfied with the design proposal. The design
solution has evolved with discussions with owner, consultant, city officials, and product vendors,
contractors, possible future users. We think we have a win/win design situation. I request your support to
proceed and not lose the opportunity to revitalize the corner, which has been empty for the last 27 years.
Thank you.
4.a
Packet Pg. 115
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Chair Baltay: Thank you for your presentation. I’d like to see if we have any questions from the Board of
the applicant. I think we might. Osma, do you want to start us off?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Question on your materials. Is this replacing the one on the left here?
Ms. Shah: It is addition to that…
Vice Chair Thompson: In addition?
Ms. Shah: … it only shows the color of the 3form. The larger piece is the custom-made order, like, this is
what the material will look like.
Vice Chair Thompson: So, not this?
Ms. Shah: No. That is just for the material, not the color, no.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. And is this the color of the concrete?
Ms. Shah: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: The concrete is showing just in the floor plates and the columns, and this color is,
what is…?
Ms. Shah: Cladding on the wall, which is shown [crosstalk]…
Vice Chair Thompson: Everywhere else.
Ms. Shah: Yeah. On the model.
Vice Chair Thompson: We don’t have a glass sample, correct?
Ms. Shah: No. We are planning to use caramel exterior glazing, which is double insulated low-e glazing for
energy efficiency.
Vice Chair Thompson: And, so, the railings are like a frosted…?
Ms. Shah: Frosted glass, yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Okay. That’s all my questions.
Chair Baltay: I just want to follow up on the material. I’m just not understanding the paneling I see on the
façade of the building, at the top. Is it this material…?
Ms. Shah: Yes.
Chair Baltay: … or is this color?
Ms. Shah: Yes.
Chair Baltay: This is a, like, sea glass of some kind?
Ms. Shah: It is a polycarbonate material.
Chair Baltay: And you’re showing sharply mitered corners. Is that something you can do with this material?
4.a
Packet Pg. 116
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Ms. Shah: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Without any issues on chipping or anything like that?
Ms. Shah: We have used this material at 102 University Avenue, and used [inaudible] material in the back
of the 3form, which allows for expansion and contraction of the material. And it is possible to have the
edge of the [turns away from microphone, inaudible. Conversing with someone off-microphone.]
Chair Baltay: I’ll give you some latitude, but I’m skeptical, and would like to see, as we really approve this,
some evidence of how this stuff meets at corners and things. It shows very nicely in your renderings.
Ms. Shah: May I send some existing pictures of the building cladding, like, the use, at a couple of our
projects?
Board Member Lew: Actually, you have the house, too, right near Hamilton, and I think after your University
Avenue presentation, I actually did look at the house. There are local examples to look at.
Chair Baltay: I believe Joe Bellomo when he says it, but I just want to see it, at the same time.
Ms. Shah: Sure, we can make a sample, like, mock-up, too.
Chair Baltay: One other question for you, before my colleagues. You’re showing a number of concrete
structural floor plates, look like about 12 inches thick. You’re bound to have some sort of lights and other
fixtures on that surface. Your intention will be to recess them into the surface, so it’s all poured in place,
so there’s no surface conduits or any other finishes on that surface.
Ms. Shah: Okay.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I just want to be sure that’s the intent. We’ve seen other buildings of this design style
by other architects where that detail wasn’t followed, and it doesn’t look so good. Okay. Any other
questions?
Mr. Bellomo: We’ve been doing exposed concrete for a while.
Chair Baltay: I’m aware of that.
Mr. Bellomo: Okay.
Chair Baltay: I just want to be clear for the record what we’re looking for. That’s what makes this work, is
that clean-looking frame. Alex?
Board Member Lew: I have a question on the 3form as well. You’re showing it on the property line condition,
like, a zero lot line. Is it fire rated?
Ms. Shah: Yes, it has two Class B fire rating.
Board Member Lew: Okay. I just want to… I’m sort of concerned about that. As long as the building
department is okay with that, I’m okay with it.
Ms. Shah: Okay. This Koda XT is for external use only, but there are other [inaudible]. But it has Class B
fire rating.
Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. I’ve looked into 3form, but not into the Koda. I’ve just looked at the
regular 3form for interior uses. And then, on the perforated mechanical screen, perforated metal, do you
have a particular one that you’re…? Like this? I’ll go into it later when we get to comments, but I do have
4.a
Packet Pg. 117
City of Palo Alto Page 21
a concern that, when you select ones that are open, relatively open, versus closed, that you can actually
see through the…
Ms. Shah: Sixty percent of opening and 40 percent coverage, yeah.
Board Member Lew: And have you used that one before?
Ms. Shah: Yes, on 116 University Avenue roof, yeah.
Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. I’ll take a look at that project.
Chair Baltay: Any other questions? David?
Board Member Hirsch: No. But the screening is used… Yeah, actually, okay. The screening is used on the
top of the building, mechanical enclosure. There’s a bit of screening also used in the southeast corner, and
it’s the same material for screening in that area? Against the aisle that’s adjacent to the…?
Ms. Shah: No.
Board Member Hirsch: Is that correct?
Ms. Shah: It’s not the same screening.
Board Member Hirsch: Same kind of screening.
Ms. Shah: It’s not.
Board Member Hirsch: It’s not?
Ms. Shah: The main reason we have screening on the southeast corner is for visual… It’s a corner for
vehicles to… yeah. For visual clarity. It will be more open screen than what we have for perforated.
Board Member Hirsch: We don’t have a sample of that?
Ms. Shah: We don’t, yeah.
Board Member Lew: I have one more question. Are you planning to incorporate public art into this project,
or are you thinking about paying the fee in lieu?
Ms. Shah: I treat the whole building as public art. I we need additional features, we can really think of…
Board Member Lew: We just have a City…
[crosstalk]
Board Member Lew: … Yeah, we have a City requirement, and I think usually the applicant, you can decide
to pay the fee…
Ms. Shah: [crosstalk].
Board Member Lew: … or to incorporate the art. And I think you have to…
Ms. Shah: Actually, it’s for more than 10,000 square foot…
Board Member Lew: Building? And this is under. Thank you for that.
4.a
Packet Pg. 118
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Chair Baltay: Can I then shift away from the building to the back of the property? I asked that question
earlier about the power line. Do you have any further information for us about that?
Ms. Shah: Overhead power line?
Chair Baltay: Yeah. Staff seems to be pointing that a partial justification for your variance request might
be the power lines being on your property as a unique condition. The survey, I believe, shows the power
line crossing the back corner of your property.
Ms. Shah: Yes.
Chair Baltay: Is there an easement or some official…?
Ms. Shah: There’s no easement recorded right now, but since there are lines, we will have to record these.
Chair Baltay: Your intention – maybe this is more to the owner – is to grant the City an easement for
existing power lines that are on your property? It seems unlikely.
Ms. Shah: Yeah, we will have to, the electrical engineer from the City of Palo Alto mentioned we will have
to record it if [inaudible].
Chair Baltay: You have to grant them an easement.
Ms. Shah: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Okay, because then, that would start to be an issue that would speak to a variance. That’s
certainly an unusual circumstance, to say the least. Any other questions from the group here? I have just
one final question, then we’re going to take a break. And this is to the owner. You don’t have to answer
this, but I’d like to know if your intention is to retain Bellomo Architects to finish this project through, to do
the construction drawings. Could you speak to the microphone about that?
Ms. Sun: That’s for sure.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. That’s wonderful. I just wanted to hear that put into the record. Thank you.
Ms. Sun: We have been working really hard. We’re super satisfied with their work, yeah.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Any other comments? With that, we’re going to
take a recess until 10:30 today, to allow for the earthquake drill.
[Video and audio ceases briefly.]
Chair Baltay: … the meeting. Seeing we have no one left. I just don’t think it makes sense to speak for
seven minutes and get broken up on it. So, we will adjourn until 10:35 today. Thank you.
[The Board took a short break for an earthquake drill.]
Chair Baltay: Okay. Good morning. We’re going to reconvene back in session. Thank you everybody for
your patience. We were discussing project 3585 El Camino Real. We had just finished taking public
testimony and hearing from the applicant, so I’d like to bring the issue back to the Board for discussion.
I’d like David to start us off with his comments about this project. David?
Board Member Hirsch: Well, we usually start off by saying “thank you” to the applicants here, for their
application. I spent a lot of time looking at the building as its drawn, looking at that corner and thinking
this is a section of Palo Alto that’s desperately in need of blocks of work. And I want to thank you because
4.a
Packet Pg. 119
City of Palo Alto Page 23
I think you created the high bar on which maybe some other developments along the street will catch fire
and do something. I guess I’m a little concerned about some of the uses, which is not what we normally
talk about here, because you have ground floor office space and upstairs office space. I know a little bit
about the community’s desire for some retail commercial nearby because there isn’t much in their
neighborhood. I didn’t ask the question before, but I would hope that maybe it’s possible somehow that
some of that gets solved. It may not be this building. That’s an open question, I think. To typify what I feel
about the building, it’s kind of a rough, high-tech building, kind of a wonderful mixture. I’m happy about
that aspect of it. I think the scale of it is pretty terrific. I’m a little confused about the solar collectors on
the roof. I’ve seen them up there, but I don’t know how far you’ve gone with that, so I would ask you to
talk to that a little bit. It seemed to me that there were some at one end, the north end of the building,
but not on the rest of the rooftop. What is the use of the solar collectors for this building?
Ms. Shah: We will be using solar panels for solar energy. Right now, I have shown the indication of where
we want to have the solar panels. We will make sure they are not visible from the pedestrian level, and
after we do detailed calculation and find out how many panels we need, then we will show an accurate…
Board Member Hirsch: It’s in progress, in other words.
Ms. Shah: Yes.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, thanks.
Ms. Shah: But we intend to use solar panels.
Board Member Hirsch: Good.
Ms. Shah: [inaudible] solar panels.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. While you’re up there, I have another question for you. What’s the use of the
aisle in the southeast corner of the building, of the lot itself? It’s called an aisle, and it’s adjacent to van-
accessible parking. There’s sort of two aisles.
Chair Baltay: Which drawing are you looking at, David, please?
Board Member Hirsch: Drawing A1.2.
Ms. Shah: One is van accessible charging station, which needs aisle on their passenger side, and other is
van accessible parking. That also has eight foot aisle on the passenger side. It also has access to the
building [inaudible].
Board Member Hirsch: Is it sort of…? There’s some space in the southeast corner, and there’s a van
accessible charging station. I see that written on that drawing, but I don’t understand exactly what’s
happening either side of parking spot 14. What is…?
Ms. Shah: That’s the aisle for accessible space. Like, loading/unloading zone for accessibility.
Board Member Hirsch: Access.
Ms. Shah: Yes.
Mr. Sing: That would be the path of travel, part of the code. They need that to get around the vehicle
safely, and that goes from the parking lot to the entrance of the building.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I know it’s a direct access to the building. I really don’t have all that many
questions to ask about the building. I think the documents you provided are very thorough all the way
4.a
Packet Pg. 120
City of Palo Alto Page 24
through, so there aren’t very many questions that I have that weren’t really answered in the drawings, in
the presentation. I would like to say that I think that you notice right away in this lot that the sidewalk is
pretty damn small, and I appreciate the fact that the building was set back a bit, and that it’s a gesture
towards the street that I hope everybody will pick up on and do exactly the same kind of setback from El
Camino. I think it is critical to make a softer corner so that squeezing trees in somehow is absolutely critical
all the way around this property, including the alley, which, although it’s just an alley, has entrances to
units, residential units, and is used by the community as a kind of through-way to get downtown, or
whatever, because El Camino isn’t so friendly right now in that area. Hopefully in the future it will be. The
best you can, with comments about the overhead being an issue with the trees, or whatever, the amount
of trees in the back, I don’t know if you’ve been so specific about what kinds of trees, bushes, whatever,
will be there, but the fact that you simply show them is important in the alley. I guess, you know, I struggled
in looking at these drawings to figure out, is that the best place for the garbage? It’s so far from the front
door to the building. But then, it’s not a big lot, and I guess people will just have to go there, and that’s it.
It is kind of concealed in a building of some sort there, which is nice. It won’t be…
Ms. Shah: Transformer size and position was the main constraint for the position of trash.
Board Member Hirsch: It will be closed in with a door…
Ms. Shah: Yeah. Trash enclosure.
Board Member Hirsch: There’s a lot of different things happening in the back of the lot, all of which I can
see are necessary. You did the best you could on that. It isn’t such a friendly area, but then again, you
certainly made it friendlier towards the corner by plantings, etc. I really appreciate the fact that you have
this kind of rough/smooth juxtaposition with the stone, stones within that graded wall. I’ve seen some good
examples of that, you know, and they’re really a scale of themselves, you know, that provide a friendlier
attitude, rather than simply a block wall, or even a stone wall. I think the scale is very nice when you break
it down like that. And, of course, the lifts work well, to answer the issue of parking. They also do require
you to have a very tall floor-to-floor on the first floor, but I guess one has to accept that. I would hope that
the City could work with you and provide all of the approvals that are necessary to make this building work.
And I really want to commend you on one aspect that I really liked a lot, and that’s the concrete frame
itself, stopping at the second level, except when it turns the corner and provides entry to the upstairs
floors. Setbacks are very nice off the street. So, I think it will be a very successful building, and as I say, I
think it’s the high bar for the area.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Osma, do you want to bring us along?
Vice Chair Thompson: Sure. All right. Thank you for your application, thank you for your presentation.
Unfortunately, I have a bit more of a critical perspective than my fellow board member. I mean, we’re
missing a few materials, like the fence on the back. It’s really important that we get the materials that
we’re going to be experiencing, like the planters. What are the planters made of? I don’t need a stone
sample from the gabion, but it’s good to know these things that are, like, standing out. Because this project
is fairly minimal, the materials are so important. The rendering and the material board, the rendering is
kind of showing the concrete having this texture, which I don’t foresee if this is the finish. It’s not really
going to look like that. I have an issue with the way that… These renderings are percented. In general, I
would say, like, this model is so beautiful, and thank you so much for making it. It’s so helpful in
understanding what’s happening. When I’m looking at the renderings, the amount of relief in the façade
doesn’t feel like it’s enough. It feels very smooth and slick, and I’m a little worried that it might feel like
too much of a block as a result. I think there’s more detail you could put, and maybe that’s in how you
treat the planters in the front. But in general, the design seems a little bit too… It needs a little bit more
relief than it has right now. In general, though, in terms of the shape, I like that it’s compact. In terms of
your site planning, it seems to make sense with what you have. It’s too bad the zoning only limits you to
35. You were talking about the affordable housing problem. This could be a high-rise, and that would solve
a lot of stuff. This might not even be a bad spot for that, actually, given that it’s kind of in this sort of up-
and-coming area that’s probably going to see a lot of change. In that vein, I wonder if there’s opportunities
4.a
Packet Pg. 121
City of Palo Alto Page 25
here for kind of prepare for the future. I was learning a bit about mass timber a little bit ago, which is a
building construction type, and with mass timber, you can build three stories, four stories, and then, later
on, if you want to add another six stories, you can. It kind of has this design that’s ready for the future.
Concrete is not as sustainable as wood. I’m not saying that you should change your material, but there’s a
lot of opportunity here to be, like you said, the face of what the new, what this area is going to become,
because it’s going to evolve. When you guys come back to us, actually, I think it would be really helpful to
kind of understand your parti a little better. I thought your parti was these floating floor plates that kind of
stick out, but I think the gloss… Sorry. What am I saying? Not the gloss. The frosted glass really kind of
derail your floor plate parti, if that is your design intent, that you want these floating things. It kind of blurs
it a little bit. Your floor plates aren’t reading as strong as it could, and you could use a different material to
have that pop out. I do think it needs a little bit of work. I’ll stop there. Thanks.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. Alex.
Board Member Lew: I’m generally in support of your project. We do get complaints from other property
owners in the neighborhood that the zoning doesn’t allow them to build enough, and that’s why nothing
has been happening there. I’m glad to see that you’re taking advantage of the housing incentive program
here. I think everybody in the City is trying to figure out ways of adding more housing, so I will support
the project in that vein. I think there are a couple things I’m looking for. One is, if the site plan could…
Your contextual site plan. If it could show a little more information with regard to the multi-family building
next door, across the street from the alley, which I think is 482 to 488 Matadero. When I was on the site
visit, I did see four doors right on the alley, just maybe like four or five feet or something from the alley. I
do want to know if those are, are those front doors? Or are those just back service doors? What’s
happening? Because your project is going to affect the site. Terrible as it is now, the existing condition. I
just want to know, what are we dealing with there with regard to privacy to those units? I think I echo
some of Osma’s comments on the building. Some of them. I guess when I look at your existing project on
University Circle, I do appreciate many of the things on those buildings. But I also do think that I’m looking
for more. To me, one of the weaknesses I see in that one is maybe on the landscape and the vines growing
up in the building, with the rebar. I am looking for the details on that. And you’re showing some with the
vines, and I think I support what you’re showing at the moment. But, to me, I think that’s sort of the critical
piece, the way I’m looking at it. I think the weakness in this project is we don’t have ground floor retail.
We have office, and it’s allowed. Also, that the high-performance glazing, you know, with, like, the low-e
glazing, it’s kind of dark, it’s kind of reflective, it’s not that great from a pedestrian point of view. Like, if I
walk along University Circle, at least to my eye, it’s not that interesting, so I think all those planters and
things that you’re doing are really critical. Any level of filigree and detail and interest, to me, is really critical.
I think the staff report didn’t mention the South El Camino Design Guidelines, but we’ve talked about this
before on other projects – the top, middle, base issue. There is sort of a guideline to not screen windows
on the second floor. I think in this case, I think the planters that you’re doing are desirable. But I think the
intent of the design guidelines was to prevent screening as in one of your neighbors. I think there’s one
maybe two doors down. I think that’s sort of the thing that we’re trying to avoid. Like, shutter kinds of
things on the windows. I think we’re also looking for pedestrian-friendly amenities. I think you’re showing
a bench, but it’s also in bamboo, so I’m not sure if I’m reading the plans correctly. But I think we’re looking
for more detail, you know, sophisticated design, to make it really attractive for people. And I think the
project, you’ll get there. It’s just I want to see more. I’d like to see more information on that. I think that’s
all that I have on this project. I think you’re off to a very good start, and I think the staff report is right,
and I think we do have to look at the variance findings along the back property line, and the perimeter
landscaping. Okay. That’s all that I have. And I do support Peter’s previous comments about recessing light
fixtures and stuff. When you have these reinforced concrete buildings, everything has to be planned out in
advance. And we have other projects – who will remain nameless – where stuff was tacked on. It was not
thought about, it does not look good, and it’s just a shame because it just has to be… It’s just better design
if you can integrate everything in from the beginning. Okay. I’ll pass it along. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Okay. I think this is an incredibly handsome building. I think it’s really
beautiful. It’s one of the nicest things I’ve seen recently come in front of us as an artistic composition. It’s
attractive, it’s logical, the scaling, the massing, all works. I’m very highly favored by it. I have a couple of
4.a
Packet Pg. 122
City of Palo Alto Page 26
questions, and then, I’m not so positive about the parking and the whole situation in the back. But I really,
as Osma was bringing up, I just need to understand better the materials. How is that concrete going to
look next to the frosted glass railing, which is flush? How is this other material up on the roof level going
to meet the concrete at the corners and stuff? I’ll grant, you guys have a great track record, you’ve done
it before, but every time, we need to understand what’s going on. On the building design, I do have one
significant concern, and it’s not so much, I think, to do with the artistry of your architecture, but rather the
requirements of the zoning ordinance, and in this case, the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, which
require buildings to have a distinct base, middle and top. I don’t think this building has that. I’m sorry to
say that in this case, but I do think that that’s the standard, that’s the rule, and that’s what we’re here to
enforce. We’ve done that with other projects. I guess what I can say to you is to please try to take seriously
that requirement. We’re trying to create urban boulevards with buildings that are background, creating
large public space in front of it. Buildings then have this distinct bottom, middle and top to help create the
walls of that outdoor space. We’re not looking for a series of sculptural, one-off masterpieces. We’re looking
for buildings that create a better urban fabric. I’m just giving you the thought process behind that
requirement. And we’re here not to debate the merits of that, but rather to enforce that, so I would ask
you to take that to heart and show us how this building does have a base, a middle and a top. It’s a
requirement; we need to see it. Right now, I’m afraid, as much as I like the concrete frame and the grid
and all that, it doesn’t meet that requirement. I don’t know how much more I can say about it than that,
but it’s there. If I could address the issue in the back. Alex put his finger on something I think is very
important. Across the alley, you have a building with quite a few people living there, and their front door,
so to speak, is right on the alley, and it’s more or less across from your garbage area. It seems to me little
thought has been given as to how your building will impact other people in the alley. I’ll grant you, theirs
is not the most beautiful situation. Nonetheless, they are there, and we do need to work with them. It
leaves me wondering if you wouldn’t have been better off trying to bring in the traffic and the access from
the alley, not from the street. I know that’s a big design shift, and I’m not trying to design for you, but I’m
just thinking as a thought process that went through my head, that there might be a way to mess around
with that. I am equally concerned about the requirement for a variance. I don’t see the justification for it
here. I don’t think you have a unique and different situation. Just being a property with an alley in the back
is not unique and special, at least not enough. And the variance requires that. If you can’t meet that, there
must be some way you can meet this landscaping requirement and meet these parking requirements. Right
now, I don’t think you’re meeting that requirement, and I think you have to. I’m sorry. It’s a tight lot; it’s
a challenging situation. You’re trying to please a hundred masters here. I think the rules are the rules, and
it’s not for us to say, “Well, it’s good enough.” Especially on things like variances. You’ve got to work with
staff on that. That’s how I see it, at least, that we need to be able to make those findings. Right now, in
the back, it seems that there might be other ways to configure that other parking business to meet the
needs of the building and be a little better integrated on the alley, and not to need a variance. I don’t have
any additional comments to those. Does anybody else want to chime in with anything else? I think we’ll be
continuing your project because we need an environmental report anyway. And you’re hearing something
of a mixed set of inputs, I think, from us up here. Does anybody want to add anything, given what
everybody else has been saying?
Board Member Hirsch: Well, you know, listening to Peter, I’d like to make a couple of comments on some
of his comments. I really think it would be an error to have the entry to the parking from the alleyway, my
reason being, for one, we’re talking about the adjacent buildings. That certainly will not improve them in
any way. You’re going to be looking at an in-and-out situation on a very small, tight alley between a
residential building and the back of this building. I don’t think it would help us to have an entry to the
parking lot. I think the dimension of the area between the parking spaces provides an obvious entry to it
from Matadero, rather than from that alleyway. You know, I looked long and hard at the back areas, which
seemed to be the most problematic of this building. I would have wished somehow the trash were somehow
rearranged, but to look at all the restrictions that are there to deal with all of that, it’s a tough problem at
that point. That’s perhaps the toughest problem on this site. And thinking about alternates, I just couldn’t
come up with any reasonable one. This seemed like the best solution, the way it’s drawn. And it’s also
recognizing the fact that this is a pedestrian alleyway, so the corner of it has as much planting as you can
manage to squeeze in. I agree that we need to see more about that. We really need to see what is going
to be there in more detail. But I would think that you’ve already thought about it, so I think you can solve
4.a
Packet Pg. 123
City of Palo Alto Page 27
it. The parking is what it is. I mean, I think City planning is accepting the parking at this point, are you
not? Can I address that to Planning? It is what it is. You’ve made the best of it that you can, out the back.
You know, in this day, with all the Ubers and what-not, you really wonder if all the parking is going to be
necessary, especially if it’s adjacent to a commercial block and bus services, etc. Public transportation is
there. I think you’ve done the best you can do with the back of this building, so I want to support the
design effort here. I think it’s admirable. I would like to comment on, kind of the negative feeling about…
And this idea of it requiring the design recommendations of El Camino, as it having a bottom, a middle and
a top, not all buildings require bottom, middle, tops. This commercial block, I think, would be the wrong
place to do that. I think it has to be a different kind of expression here. If I disagree with standards, I’m
sorry, but I disagree with standards. Then let’s change the standards, because this particular demonstration
here with a two-story frame is more in keeping with the scale of the block right now, so why not just
continue with that idea? It’s strong enough by itself. I don’t see a bottom, a middle and a top having any
meaningful relationship to El Camino here, at all. I want to emphasize that very strongly, that I think we
shouldn’t be guided by that kind of a principle on this block. And that’s really my comment.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Would anybody else like to add anything? Osma.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Just to respond to that. I do understand the frustration sometimes to deal
with those guidelines. However, I am more in keeping with Board Member Baltay’s assertion that the base,
middle, top is something that we should enforce. The only reason I feel that way is mainly because, kind
of what I was mentioning before. The building as it stands right now feels like it is lacking a little bit, and
potentially adding that kind of structure would give it more visual interest. I say it’s potentially an
opportunity to make the building better. I also agree with Board Member Baltay, that that landscaping, we
should try to retain the landscaping that would be required along the perimeter. I don’t know that the
variance is merited.
Board Member Lew: I have nothing else. I would just comment that the variance findings are the purview
of the Planning Director. You can always comment, but the Planning Director will be the arbiter of that.
Chair Baltay: Absolutely. That’s right. Okay. With that, does the applicant have any questions of us? Our
objective is to try to give as clear a set of directions as we can. I think, in this case, it’s a little bit uneven,
what we’re saying to you. Can we help clarify anything for you?
Ms. Shah: Do we get to respond to your comments right now, or…?
Chair Baltay: Well, that’s sort of what I’m asking you, if you have any questions. We’re not looking for an
argument; we’re looking for clarification. Please go ahead.
Ms. Shah: No, yeah, to have a clear direction moving forward, I have some explanation regarding findings
or variance, the entry from alley side, or landscaping on the rear. That’s what I want to mention. I’m not
trying to defend or argue here. I’m trying to find solution for the next meeting. Sheldon has mentioned
about the findings for variance. Here are my suggestions. We need to consider why this site is unique. One
is the lot size…
Chair Baltay: Excuse me. I do not want to go through again the arguments we just presented. I’m asking
if you have questions about what we have said. We really don’t want to debate the points of the variance.
As Alex mentioned, it’s up to staff anyway. Do you have any questions about the comments anybody up
here has made?
Ms. Gerhardt: Are there any questions about how to address the base, middle and top?
Chair Baltay: Architect Bellomo, do you care to address this? I mean, we are torn by the requirement, but
it is a requirement.
Mr. Bellomo: I’m confused with base, middle and top. It’s a holistic building.
4.a
Packet Pg. 124
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Chair Baltay: Surely you’ve looked at…
Mr. Bellomo: There are obviously tops, and middles and bases, but I, you know, we’re trying to have an
organic approach to the building. It’s cast in place concrete. It’s what we’re good at.
Board Member Lew: Why don’t we go through that, for the next meeting, why don’t we list some of the El
Camino Design Guideline….? And they’re guidelines, right? They are not zoning requirements. Why don’t
we list them all out, and then we can actually rate them…?
[crosstalk]
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, in the next staff report, we can certainly beef up the discussion about the El Camino
guidelines. I’m just wondering about the, you know, usually it’s the base and the top that need to be
emphasized to bring more of that character out. On the base here, there does seem to be, on the first
floor, over the top of the windows is not actually windows. I don’t have the language for this; maybe you
do. But maybe there’s a paint color that would help above the windows there, that would help enhance the
base. I’m just trying to give them some direction on how to enhance the base.
Vice Chair Thompson: Not sure quite what you were pointing to. Also not sure that the stuff is paintable,
in general. There are El Camino guidelines, you can find them on line. We had a study session last year
about a base/middle/top, what that means, what we’re looking for, which I think staff can probably provide
you. In general, it’s just that there is a strong delineation between, like, architecturally between the base,
middle and top, and right now, your top is kind of inset and in the back, kind of hidden, so when I’m looking
at your building, I don’t see a top, basically. But, again, there are other ways to address it, and there’s kind
of… I don’t know. I hope that’s helpful.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Yes, Alex, please.
Board Member Lew: Another thing that has come up on other project is, like, where do commercial tenants
place their signs? We’re looking for things that where, in the future, different tenants, that they can actually
add to the architecture of the project. Are there awnings, or some sort of sun shades, or canopies, or
armatures? Or is there a sign program for the project where there are, like, small blade signs that are
pedestrian-friendly? We’re looking at all those things that you see downtown. Things like that that can help
the project. I want to make the distinction that, like, downtown, we have very specific regulations, and we
don’t have them for El Camino. But I think the guidelines point to those things that we’re looking for, some
of those elements, even if it’s not literally in the code. And it seems to me that, I think that Peter and Osma
have it correct. I think there is room for improvement here. And I will acknowledge David’s point. We have
mid-century buildings on this block, and I think the bottom two floors of your building do complement the
neighborhood buildings. I get that. But, looking forward into the future, where many sites on El Camino,
that they’re going to have, like, four-story buildings. We have a new hotel coming that’s actually five stories.
In those cases, we really do need a base, middle and top to break up the monotony of the building. This
building is only three stories, 35 feet high. It’s not quite as critical on this one as it is for the taller buildings,
but I think we are still looking with an eye to the future, of bigger buildings. We just need more, more
design and more detail looking ahead. I will make a motion that we… We’re done? No?
Vice Chair Thompson: I just wanted to respond. I totally agree with what you’re saying, Alex. You just
reminded me, there’s another point that I forgot to bring up, is that this elevation that we’re looking at
here is the south elevation, where, you know, we’re in a temperate climate, so you have some overhangs
on one side, but you have a full glass-enclosed circulation space here that’s not shaded. And in your top
story, you’re showing glass shading, but I don’t really think that’s going to help you on a solar temperature
thermal comfort perspective. As you’re kind of looking at how to address this top, maybe you’ll integrate
something that will help thermally by integrating shading. It would probably satisfy the requirements that
we’re asking for, and also make your building more ecological.
4.a
Packet Pg. 125
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Board Member Hirsch: If I could jump back in for just a second. I thought Alex brought up some interesting
points, that there’s enough good ways in which one could take that ground floor and distinguish it by
imagining some future use of commercial, office, whatever, and emphasize somehow that it is the main
floor. If you had an overlay of this particular building. And change the scale of it at the same time in order
to… Well, it should be the same scale, but there could be other emphasis on the ground floor that would
give it a distinct look as a ground floor. And it doesn’t mean that you have to, in my opinion, change the
basic concrete frame of the building, which I think will carry through on this particular block, especially
because of the neighbors as you show them, you know, which don’t have that strong personality, but
certainly are two stories high and facing the street. There could be some improvements in that area,
although I really do agree with the shape of this building. And as Alex points out, it’s a three-story building,
so it’s not exactly the same as other buildings that do require a base, a middle and a top. Or a base, in any
case, that’s emphasize. There are more things that you could do to answer the Board’s issues. I don’t think
it should vary much in the frame, the way the frame is created here, but in the detail on the ground floor.
MOTION
Board Member Lew: Okay. If we’re done, I will make a motion that we continue this project to a date
uncertain.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. I’ll second that. Move and seconded. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? Motion
carries 4-0.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 4-0.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much.
Study Session
Chair Baltay: Moving right along, we have a study session on the agenda, but I don’t believe we have
anything to study, do we? Perhaps that’s a good point where we could bring up a report from Board Member
Lew regarding the Ventura design process.
Board Member Lew: Do you want to do the minutes, too? For September 5th? But if we want to do the
board member things, board member announcements, we can do that.
Chair Baltay: Yes, I’m sorry, you’re right. I didn’t see that down at the bottom. Very well. Study session,
we’re not going to do.
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 5, 2019.
Chair Baltay: Approval of minutes. We’d like to review the draft Architectural Review Board minutes from
September 5th. Any comments, or can I have a motion, please?
Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll move that we approve the minutes for September 5, 2019.
Board Member Hirsch: I’ll send that.
Chair Baltay: Moved and second. All those in favor? Opposed? Hearing none, motion carries 4-0.
MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-0.
Chair Baltay: On to subcommittee items. How can we do that? We’re going to shift the subcommittee items
to after board member questions.
4.a
Packet Pg. 126
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Chair Baltay: Now we’re going to go to Board Member questions, where we would like to have Board
Member Lew give us a report on the process with the Ventura design review committee. Alex?
Board Member Lew: Okay, so the next meeting for North Ventura is on October 29th at 5:30 in the lobby
conference room at City Hall. My understanding is the agenda has not been announced yet, but my
understanding is that discussion will be different, the different possibilities for housing density. I’m actually
collecting images of projects in the Bay Area of different densities, like 40 units an acre, 60 units an acre,
100 units an acre. Berkeley, over the last 10 years, has been building projects in the 150 units per acre
density, generally within the 50 to 55 foot height limit. Anyway, I’m collecting images on all of those, so if
you have a particular project that you think is a good model for Palo Alto, please send them to me and I
will try to get them into the presentation.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Board Member Lew. Any questions of Alex?
Board Member Hirsch: Alex, could you talk a little bit [adjusting microphone]. Could you talk a little bit
about what…? I was there, so, you know, just an observer at these meetings. There was a big, long
discussion from Subrado [phonetic] about what their intentions are on the lot. Could you speak to that?
Board Member Lew: Well, I’m not sure I should rephrase everything. I think it’s all captured on the
recordings. Generally, they bought a building that is very expensive to bring up to current codes and
standards, but the office rents are so high that they think that it’s, in the near term, that it’s okay to keep
the Fry’s site, the Fry’s tenant in there empty, and the office rents will cover the cost of the building. They
don’t necessarily have an incentive to tear down the building and build housing in the near term, at least
at the densities that are allowed under the current zoning, which is… I’ve forgot if it’s RM30 or RM40. But
they are long-term landowner, and they also do see residential, a residential use as a complement to their
commercial real estate portfolio. There are different trade-offs if you’re doing, like, office development
versus residential, and they are looking to balance their portfolio.
Board Member Hirsch: Just one other aspect to that. I wonder if you could speak to the resistance they
had to the thought of this being a significant residential site. In particular, they already, I think, have
decided – Jodie, you might answer this one – decided not to go ahead with the other project that they
have that’s adjacent, where’s Mike’s Bike is. Pull that back. Is that true?
Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t know that there has been anything official, but I have not seen very much action on
the 3001 El Camino project, correct.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. So, you know, I think they are resisting because of their discussion about
marketability, right? Of housing. Could you talk about that?
Board Member Lew: Well, they have very high construction costs now. And also, after he made that
comment about the 3001 El Camino project, I did pull up the plans for that again, just to refresh my
memory on it. And compared to what I’m seeing in other cities, it’s a very small project. It’s, like, 44 units
on a huge site, and part of it is only two stories. And if you see the housing projects being built in our
neighboring cities, they are doing seven stories of housing. I think it may point to the fact that it’s… It may
not be penciling out now because there’s not enough covering their costs. I mean, that’s their business,
not mine. I think it would be interesting to do a comparison of what’s happening elsewhere in the cities.
And I will point you, I went to a lecture at, at spur [phonetic] and San Jose, and there’s an organization
called the Turner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, and they’ve done a white paper on building
market rate housing, and they’re trying to do… They have a building prototype that they sent out to bid,
and they’ve done it for Sacramento, the East Bay, and San Jose. They’re just trying to daylight all of the
costs, including area housing costs, parking costs, and just give it daylight so that government officials
understand what the private developers are actually dealing with. I can forward it to the Board.
4.a
Packet Pg. 127
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Board Member Hirsch: Thank you.
Board Member Lew: Generally, I think the findings of the report is that changes in, like, affordable housing
requirement and the parking, like, seemingly small things, if you add up several of those things, it will make
a project infeasible. And it also gives some information on what the greedy developers are actually having
to do. Like, they won’t get a project financed if there isn’t a profit incentive for the banks. It just won’t
happen. It’s just trying to give information, you know, information and daylight about that. It’s an
interesting report. I don’t have my notes in front of me, but I think it was coming up with $500,000 per
unit in San Jose, not Palo Alto, and that’s with no extra fees, if the City has a special open space tax, any
of that stuff. It’s free of all of that. Or infrastructure, off-site infrastructure requirements. That’s the bare
minimum base prices. When we get to Palo Alto, we’re looking at something more like $800,000 per unit,
minimum, so it’s expensive to build a unit. That’s why the rents are going to towards $6,000 a month for
a two-bedroom.
Board Member Hirsch: Right. Thank you. That’s illuminating comments there.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Okay, with that, our meeting is adjourned. We will reconvene with the
subcommittee up front here. Thank you, everybody.
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.
Adjournment
4.a
Packet Pg. 128
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10898)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 12/5/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Minutes of November 7, 2019
Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for
November 7, 2019.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Draft minutes from the November 7, 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: November 7, 2019 Draft Minutes (DOCX)
5
Packet Pg. 129
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew, David
Hirsch and Grace Lee.
Absent: None.
Chair Baltay: … November 7, 2019, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Could we have a
roll call, please?
[Roll Call]
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Thank you. All present.
Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Oral Communications
Chair Baltay: First order of business is oral communications, if there’s any member of the public who wishes
to speak to an item not on our agenda. Seeing and hearing no one, we’ll go on.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Baltay: Are there any changes to the agenda, deletions? Jodie? No, no changes.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future
Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions
Chair Baltay: City Official Reports.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. For the next hearing, November 21st, we actually do not have any items, so we’re
recommending cancelling that meeting. We do have items that are in the queue for both of the December
hearings, December 5th and December 19th. I do want to make sure that everyone is going to be available
on those dates.
Board Member Hirsch: December 19th…?
Ms. Gerhardt: The 5th and the 19th, yes.
Chair Baltay: I think so. I will.
Board Member Lee: I will not be here on the 19th.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: November 7, 2019
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
5.a
Packet Pg. 130
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Baltay: Anyone else? Okay, thank you.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN00110]: Continuation of the
October 3, 2019 Hearing for Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition
of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Building Located in the Stanford Shopping Center
and the Construction of (1) a Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 sf, (2) two Retail Buildings,
Approximately 3,500 sf each, and (3) a Retail Building, Approximately 28,000 sf (78,500 sf in total).
Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning
District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel
Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay: We’ll move on to our first action
item, which is
Chair Baltay: We’ll move on to our first action item, which is a public hearing for 180 El Camino Real.
Continuation of the October 3, 2019 hearing for consideration of a major architectural review to allow the
demolition of the existing 94,300 square foot Macy’s Men’s building located in the Stanford Shopping
Center, and the construction of (1) a retail building, approximately 43,500 square feet, (2) two retail
buildings, approximately 3,500 square feet each, and (3) a retail building, approximately 28,000 square
feet. I understand that this is going to be continued to the next, or to some unknown date in the future.
Is that right?
Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Staff is asking to continue this to a date uncertain. We hope to bring it back fairly
quickly. We just don’t know exactly what date that will be.
Chair Baltay: Do you know what the status is, or what they’re going to be bringing back? Are they making
the changes we worked out in our last meeting on that project?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think we agreed that the speed table was the preferred option for that one drive aisle.
Related to the Wilkes Bashford building, they are potentially bringing back a project that just shows a pad
building, not a building, a pad, for the Wilkes Bashford, so that you could just look at both the Restoration
Hardware, the two other retail establishments, and just the parking lot area for Wilkes Bashford. They are
working on a second option that would have the entire Wilkes Bashford building included with some
updated architecture. We just weren’t sure if we could… We weren’t going to meet this timeframe, so
maybe at a later date, they will have all of it together.
Chair Baltay: Okay, great, thank you.
MOTION
Chair Baltay: You’re asking us to just continue this project, so I’ll look for a motion to continue.
Vice Chair Thompson: I move that we continue this to a date uncertain.
Board Member Hirsch: I’ll second that.
Chair Baltay: Okay, moved and seconded. All those in favor?
Board Member Lew: Aye.
Vice Chair Thompson: Aye.
Board Member Hirsch: Aye.
Chair Baltay: Aye.
5.a
Packet Pg. 131
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Board Member Lee: Sorry, I will recuse myself from this item, so I’m not sure if I should…?
Chair Baltay: Motion carries 4 ayes, no opposed, one recusal.
MOTION PASSES 4-0.
3. Discussion of Potential Topics for Joint Study Session with City Council.
Chair Baltay: Okay, moving on to the next item, number 2 [sic]. This is a discussion of potential topics for
the joint study with City Council. We are going to be having a joint meeting with City Council to go over
items of interest to them, and us, potentially. The purpose of the discussion today is to try to outline what
we hope to talk about and accomplish at that meeting. Later on today, myself and Vice Chair Thompson
are going to be meeting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor to try to firm up an agenda for that meeting, as
well. What I’d like to put to my colleagues now is, I’ve never participated, and when I watch these types
of meetings in the past, they have the potential to become a, sort of a rambling series of people speaking
at almost cross-purposes. It’s really in our interest if we can try to focus ourselves collectively to a series
of ideas and issues that we feel are important and can all support together, and then, make a little bit of
effort to be cogent, succinct, prepared, and then, present something to the Council so they can get their
teeth around it. We’re fortunate to get a chunk of their time collectively, and we should respect that. With
that, I think the way to start is to ask Amy French and Alex, who have both some institutional memory of
what past meetings like this have been about, and maybe we could ask them to just bring us up to speed,
what we might expect. And then, I’d like to go through as a group and see if we can identify some topics
and issues that we all feel are important, and ideally, even break it out so one of us each might be in
charge of presenting to the Council, one idea. With that, Amy, why don’t you tell us what you know. Thank
you.
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning. You mentioned each board member having a role in
the joint meeting, and I think that seems to have been a formula that was helpful. Alex may want to weigh
in on that, but I thought it was a great way for presentation, perhaps a PowerPoint, where each board
member has a role in presenting a piece of that presentation, a topic of interest to the entire Board, and
of interest to the Council. Yes, in the past, staff has attended, and they will again this year. Jodie, I believe,
is attending today’s meeting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor and Chair and Vice Chair, to get a feel for what
Council – the Mayor and Vice Mayor – have as well, to request of the ARB to come and talk about. That
would be informative. And then, this year, it looks nice, there’s an annual report that was delivered to the
City Council in their packet a couple weeks ago, maybe two meetings ago, three meetings ago, perhaps,
to the City Council. They received that in their packet. Whether they looked at it…? It’s an opportunity to
chat about that. It’s an opportunity to chat about the Architectural Review Board awards that are coming
up in 2020, just so they’re aware of that. It’s an opportunity for other potential big projects, housing
projects to be highlighted. And whatever else the Board is thinking they would like to discuss with the
Council, if there’s direction requested, purpose. That’s all I have to say about that.
Chair Baltay: Thanks, Amy. Alex, you’ve been through these. Actually, before you start, Grace, have you,
in the past, been through one? Maybe both of you could just tell us what you saw and heard, and what
advice you might give us before we get started.
Board Member Lew: Sure. I would say that I think I agree with you about the joint meetings. It’s actually
very hard to have a discussion with the two boards, or a board and City Council, just because there’s so
many people involved. I would say one of the more, in my opinion, one of the more successful joint
meetings that we’ve had with the Council is, one year there was a PowerPoint presentation, and the Board
had discussed which topic each board member would discuss. The PowerPoint did try to address maybe
key projects, certain aspects of key projects. Like, at one point, Council was really concerned about, say,
the entrances, like, the lack of permanent entrances for buildings on El Camino, so we did use one of those
projects as an example. We also used a project downtown on University Avenue as an example of how a
project changed during the ARB process for the better, and how it was more contextual. I think that’s a
good approach. And then, I would think, too, is that, since this is supposed to be annual, I know we haven’t
had it for a while, but I think we should look back at last year’s projects. And I might suggest looking at
5.a
Packet Pg. 132
City of Palo Alto Page 4
the controversial ones, if there was something the Board was unresolved. You know, say it’s 429 University,
or maybe it’s the Mercedes-Benz dealer on Embarcadero Road. If there’s one where we really struggled,
then let’s just take it up and just discuss what we think did well, what we think may need to be changed
or modified to make it better in the future.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Grace, what can you add?
Board Member Lee: It was one a few years back, and it was a different council. I do recall that there was
a lack of structure, no PowerPoint, and we didn’t have significant discussion about what we were going to
talk about as a group. I would say that it actually contrasted greatly from what Alex presented, and I think
it was before, Alex, you joined the board. I did want to note that, you know, I appreciate this effort in
terms of a PowerPoint and each with a topic, and assessing ARB process and last year’s projects. I do
caution against opening up a large discussion on a project with minutia detail. I think that a summary in
terms of something that has been discussed and has moved forward, whatever the outcome is, is best to
treat as a summary. The other piece that I just want to mention, in thinking back on how the other joint
meeting went, the other piece that I hope that we can talk about today is just how our board speaks to
planning issues where there’s another entity – a planning commission, as well as staff – to speak on those
planning issues. I did want to talk about our mission and our purview as Architectural Review Board
members. If you’re comfortable, maybe we could move to that later in our discussion.
Chair Baltay: That would be great, thank you. That’s a good idea. Okay. You asked if the rest of us have
comments. Of course. What I’m trying to do is structured, and right now, gather as much information as
we can from how past meetings have gone. If you’ve been to a past Architectural Review Board/City Council
meeting…
Board Member Hirsch: No.
Chair Baltay: … I’d love to hear your opinion.
Board Member Hirsch: No.
Chair Baltay: If not, then what I’d like to do, before we start discussing more, taking this letter to Council
we wrote as a starting point, I’m going to just list a series of the topics, and I’m hoping we can all try to
focus in on a couple of these that we feel are important, with the understanding that our objective is to
find items that we think we’ve observed, things through the ARB review process that the Council might be
interested in. It’s not stuff that we’re personally feeling important about, but we’re trying to convey to
Council information that Council should know. That’s the objective. Grace, I don’t know if you were part of
this letter we wrote, but over the summer, we put this together, and more or less came to agreement on
all of these things. At the end, we finally just said we have to get it out. The first item was trees. We were
pointing out that some construction projects with underground garages limit the size of trees, and our
request was that, we said these issues can be addressed in part through design review, but more explicit
landscaping standards would be beneficial. I think we all agreed that is a little bit vague sometimes.
The second item we called curb management. It has to do with the increase in use of ride shares, and also
deliveries for businesses in town, and not having… What we said is: Updated standards for commercial
delivery areas and more explicit standards for ride share pickup and drop-off zones would be beneficial.
Again, when we’re reviewing projects, it’s often an issue that comes up, and there’s really a lack of
guidelines for applicants, what to do.
The third item was one that we see over and over again. It’s displacement of small businesses. That’s, I
think, a planning type issue, Grace, you were just alluding to. Over and over again, we see larger
developments kicking out small businesses, which form the backbone of this community of ours. I don’t
think we had a recommendation or anything necessarily to do about it, but we’re just pointing it out. I think
we had in here; Alex had brought up some examples of what’s being done in San Francisco.
5.a
Packet Pg. 133
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The fourth item we put out here was parking issues at the Stanford Shopping Center. I think we’re all pretty
familiar with that. Another item is pedestrian mobility. This is related to the width of sidewalks and outdoor
seating areas in front of various businesses. This is something I know Wynne Furth was passionate about.
We’ve had benches in front of a lot of projects that have been reviewed recently. Another item was El
Camino Real: Revised parking standards for developments along El Camino Real would promote the
development of neighborhood retail and restaurant businesses. The last item was just the Architectural
Review Board findings, and sort of the Architectural Review Board process. With that, there’s eight items
on this list, so why don’t we each talk about a couple of these that we think are important. I think we need
to pare it down. That’s too many. What’s important out of all of this? What do we still feel? This is now a
few months after we talked about it. David, do you want to start? Or whomever. We don’t need this to be
that formal.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. I think, in general, what I kind of see is that we’ve had some significant
comments to make about landscaping. I’m concerned that, in some sense, we don’t have on the Board
enough capability to review landscaping issues. I would suggest that we ask that when there’s a possibility
of a new member on the board, that we ask the Council to consider having a person of landscape ability
greater than what we have on the board right now, to help us in regard to review of these projects that
involve landscaping. I usually turn to Alex and ask him. He has quite a lot of knowledge about it, but I think
we could use even more, in some way, on the board. That was kind of a general comment I have about
that. I think there are other areas of interest that are beyond what are mentioned here. San Antonio Road
now has become kind of a new area for us, and it seems to me, having looked at the hotel, this monster
item coming up on San Antonio Road, that now we’re dealing with other sites on San Antonio, and we
should be questioning how that zoning will affect the look of San Antonio Road. I have a few others. Those
are two of the major. I’d like to come back maybe and continue…
Chair Baltay: That’s fine. Who else wants to chime in? Grace?
Board Member Lee: Osma, would you like to go? Because you haven’t spoken.
Vice Chair Thompson: Sure, why not?
Board Member Lee: I’d be happy to…
Vice Chair Thompson: The items that stand out to me as important. The trees are a really big one. I think
we should definitely talk about the urban canopy and how… We have a lot of projects that come in front
of us that make some minor apologies for, “Sorry, we had to get rid of this tree,” kind of thing. And having
a bit more stronger attitude about what’s important for our ecosystem I think is important to stress. And
then, even on that vein, I think that’s kind of hand in hand with a stronger attitude towards sustainability
in projects. I think California is pretty good about sustainability, but making that more of our, something
that’s part of our mission, something that when we’re looking at a project, we should really look at that
lens a bit more closely. I think that kind of goes hand in hand with the trees. That was kind of the major
thing that started in front of me. I think when we were drafting this letter, kind of very late in the game, I
had a few things to add that never got in there, so I don’t know if this is the right time to talk about it.
Chair Baltay: This is the right time to talk about it.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Then the other item that’s not on this list but I think might be worth broaching,
and I’d be curious to hear my board members’ opinion, is the general aesthetics of things that we’re looking
at, and then, kind of an evaluation of, maybe even last year’s projects. The similarities of things that we’re
seeing, and kind of how that is going to change the face of the city, and also having an attitude about the
scale of things that come to us, and the types of materials that come to us. And then, forming an opinion
on if, if we feel like that’s good for Palo Alto in the future.
Chair Baltay: Those are such generalized… Osma, can you give me some examples of good and bad general
aesthetics?
5.a
Packet Pg. 134
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I would say, in general, the scale of items that we’re seeing, that a lot of the
times when we first see a project but usually don’t approve, it’s because the scale of the design is so broad
brush and large that it doesn’t have a smaller human pedestrian scale. I feel like a lot of the projects that
we have been able to approve through this process have been a result of pushing them to go to a smaller
scale. I think we can push even more than we have already. I think there are projects that have gone
through that I think could have even benefitted more from pushing down even more. So, I think scale is a
big item.
Chair Baltay: That’s a great observation. I agree.
Board Member Hirsch: Just a couple of comments. If I can remember what I was just thinking. I thought
about how to make a presentation, you know, PowerPoint, would be to start with a project that comes in,
you know, what it brought to us first, and then, show how we’ve managed to modify it with some of our
comments, you know? Would be an absolutely great way to do it. And the reason I’m suggesting that is,
you know, I think that we look at things visually, make our comments based on our experience that way,
and I don’t think the Council really are those kind of people. They need to be brought up to speed on how
we are thinking about projects, and this would be a good way to do it. That’s one. Amy, one thought is, I
have some concern about how cell towers were presented, but I don’t know if want to get in the middle of
that one. It’s into the weeds. But it’s been in our craw in a way for a while. Yours, too, I have a feeling,
and it’s been tough. You want to stay away from that one, right?
Ms. French: Yes, I would suggest that they’re such… Since I’m jumping in, one thing that will be coming
to the ARB, we are, because of state legislation that is advocating affordable housing projects and looking
at objective standards, we’re looking at objective standards for cell towers, but not as interested in that as
I am in the housing objective standards because we are going to be looking at our ARB findings, the context
base findings, and seeing if there are ways to have more objective standards for affordable housing
projects. This is, if you’re thinking about projects to talk about and how your influence, you know, improved
the projects, we might want to think the project that includes multi-family housing, and start thinking about
how our aesthetics are quantified somehow in the findings, or the context-based design criteria. That’s
going to be a big topic coming up, is how we can more objective.
Board Member Hirsch: Another one, as part of that, would be… What is it called? The small dwellings?
Chair Baltay: ADUs.
Board Member Hirsch: ADUs. To actually see a sample of how an ADU has actually worked in this
community here. I’m just curious because it’s so talked about in the entire state now, you know? What
have we done?
Ms. French: It’s a little off-topic just because ARB doesn’t look at the ADUs, and they are administerial, so
we don’t have a discretionary review aspect of those at all.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, that’s true.
Ms. French: I would just say that’s a topic for another day that we could talk about, but probably not good
for this meeting with the joint council, just because there’s so much else that the ARB is involved in
reviewing.
Chair Baltay: I want to remind us all that our goal is to find things that we think the Council needs to hear
from us.
Board Member Hirsch: Why wouldn’t something like the impact of an ADU on a residential area be
important?
Chair Baltay: Well, we don’t have any explicit experience with the ARB doing that. None whatsoever. That’s
where I think we want to be careful. It’s not my opinion as a practicing architect. I’ve designed many ADUs
5.a
Packet Pg. 135
City of Palo Alto Page 7
and I have strong opinions about it, but I want to be careful that we’re here as a board, taking City Council’s
time as a council to communicate to them things that we, I think, really have observed and can make
strong statements about. I think the cell tower ship has sailed, David, unfortunately. Council has heard
everybody’s opinion in multitudes on that. Alex, what are you thinking?
Board Member Lew: Okay, so, I think I do… I do think the tree issue is important, and I think I would
enlarge that topic to encompass…. I might incorporate that into, like, we have, like, a parking issue. I might
sort of enlarge it so it’s not just about trees, because it’s related to…
Chair Baltay: It’s all related, yeah.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, they’re all tied together. It’s not just the trees, the issue of bigger scale urban
buildings, and how does the city grow to the next larger scale but still keep true to its roots. I think I
support David’s comment about San Antonio Road and development happening there, although I’m thinking
that maybe we push that back a year, until maybe after the hotel is finished, so there is something to react
against. I think it’s important because San Antonio Road has the CS zoning, but we don’t have any El
Camino Design Guidelines for that street. And there’s no, based on the site facing on Mountain View, there’s
no, they typically don’t have residential behind there, so there potentially can be very large buildings on
one side of the street on San Antonio Road. I think that is a concern. Another comment on the pedestrian
mobility is that I think that we should mention, I think we should incorporate in there the percentage of
population that’s going to be over 65, is going to grow by 40 percent. It’s basically the Baby Boomers are
going to be retiring, and I think that’s a huge issue. I think that was part of Wynne’s thinking in adding
this. I think I might enlarge it. More of, like, aging in place, and how does the city adapt to that. It’s not
just about benches. I find that with my own parents. They’re used to living in the town, and now they’re
realizing that they have to sort of change their lifestyle for their age, and they’re not finding that the city
is working that well for them. I think that’s an interesting topic. If we bring that up at the Council, I don’t
know what comes of it, but I think that’s sort of on the radar. If you think about the road diet that we did
on Charleston and Arastradero. That was sort of with an eye towards that, with all of the build-out and
crosswalks. And then, I had a comment on the… On the El Camino issue. I think you say in there, the last
line is, “Revised parking standards for development on El Camino would promote development of
neighborhood retail and restaurant businesses.” And I do support that, and I think staff has tried to address
that. We do have a new exclusion, either the first 1,500 square feet of ground floor retail doesn’t have to
be parked. That’s new. I think maybe we could highlight that that’s in there. We don’t really have any
projects that have used it yet. I think the one on San Antonio Road is going to try to use it, even though
they’re on San Antonio Road. They’re not on El Camino. I think, in that one, we could probably mention
that. Many of the restaurants that people frequent don’t have enough parking. They’re grandfathered in.
There’s no incentive to improve your property if you’re already deficient on… You’re grandfathered in, right?
Don’t touch the parking lot because then you’d have to bring it up to code. It’s a really difficult situation,
where we’ve got things that don’t look good.
Chair Baltay: Well, we kind of have 1950’s suburban parking requirements for a growing city.
Board Member Lew: Yep.
Chair Baltay: Sooner or later, that conflicts.
Board Member Lew: Yep.
Chair Baltay: What we observe, you’re right, is when a restaurant comes in, or a building with a restaurant
on the ground floor. Parking drives everything. They can’t actually meet the parking to make the restaurant
fit. Costs go sky high to make it work with subterranean elevator parking spots, and it’s not really in the
city’s best interest. That’s precisely, I think, the kind of thing Council should be hearing from us, is the nuts
and bolts of why and how that code requirement impacts the inability to create things that we all want to
see in the town. That’s a good point, Alex.
5.a
Packet Pg. 136
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Board Member Lew: Yeah. And if we say that we really want to hold on to parking standards, you sort of
have to accept that it might be, we have to allow other uses – whatever it is, exercise place, other things
– because retail is sort of declining. I think there’s a huge demand for exercise places. It’s a tricky one.
And I think the difference is, like on El Camino, that the parking standards are specific to the use, whereas
downtown or the shopping center is all blended. I think that that one is more complicated. That one is,
like, really complicated. I think it’s kind of hard to have a discussion on that. As you guys know, the zoning
on El Camino is very site-specific.
Chair Baltay: Is there any support on the Board for the concept that parking standards as a whole are
driving a lot of development in the town, and perhaps really need all to be revised?
Board Member Lee: May I just make a few comments that relate to…?
Chair Baltay: Please do.
Board Member Lee: And I’m sorry, I feel like I’m the new person, and I am the new person, but I’m also
an old person. I did want to make some comments that might not sit well, and it’s because I’m joining the
Board so late, and I haven’t been a part of your process in the past year. I want to thank you so much for
all of the work that has been completed, and I’m not knowledgeable on the projects, all the details. That’s
why I have some hesitation in being a part of going through specific projects. I think there is a challenge
in that for myself, and I’m happy to kind of sit back if you all would like to do that. I see the ARB as really,
I feel more comfortable talking about all of these things. When we begin to structure in terms of our role
in, you know, context-based and contextual design, high-quality materials that age properly and, you know,
sit well in that context. Scale, and the need for recognition of landscape as something that often speaks to
scale. Looking at different cities in terms of learning from those precedents and examples of what may
occur in a similar sized growing place. I feel less comfortable in terms of talking because there may be
disagreement in terms of aesthetics on our board. Color is very subjective; aesthetics is very subjective. I
also think about these applications that come in as individual applications, and I’m wary of the Board
pushing an applicant to a certain spot. I’m also not comfortable with critiquing… I mean, parking standards
are totally, completely involved in design, but I’m wary of being a planner. I have a planning background,
I have worked on other design projects in my professional life, and I see the connection. But we have a
Planning Commission, we have City Council, we have an excellent staff, and I feel like our purview is to
review applications that come in, each separately. So, when we make these larger comments about
displacement of small businesses, even the comments regarding zoning, land use planning and designations
of zoning on El Camino Real. These TDMs are really important; I feel like that’s, again, not our purview,
still. I feel like that’s a staff, that they work with the applicant in that way. And maybe I’ve just not been
on the Board for the last 10 years, but I’m wary of me, as an applicant, as an architectural designer, going
to a city where there are large changes that are occurring and being suggested that are not architectural
design based. That has occurred. I’ve been on the other side, and it does create discomfort. And I’m not
sure that’s our purview.
Chair Baltay: I agree with you, Grace. I think all of us feel that we want to be very careful not to try to
become planners or staff reviewing projects, and we don’t want to be, for example, requiring more parking
than the code requires, or saying you can’t exceed or go to an FAR standard [crosstalk].
Board Member Lee: And I’m sure this Board is not doing that. My feeling is… And, sorry, not to jump in,
Peter, but I feel most comfortable with G, in terms of the findings that I saw that you have revised since
2017. I feel very comfortable with A, B and E as it relates to the public realm in terms of evaluating
applications. Not as comfortable with C, D and F as they are written. However, I believe, you know, there
should be a general discussion with Council on all of the issues that come up through these projects, and
if it works best, perhaps I can listen in terms of how the Board is presenting on work that they have
reviewed that, you know, I did not weigh in on.
Chair Baltay: Let me try to sway your thinking a little bit, because we’ve evolved, I think, since I’ve been
on the Board, at least, to I think realizing that there are trends that seem to be showing up over and over
again in projects, meeting current codes and planning conditions. What I think we’ve come to think is that
5.a
Packet Pg. 137
City of Palo Alto Page 9
we’re the ones, so to speak, in the trenches, observing the reality of what happens when a building is
designed to meet these standards. And my understanding, talking to architects, citizens, applicants and
council members, is that they don’t really see the ramification of some of these things. What I think we’re
advocating for is not how to change the code, but rather to say that some of these things are issues. We’ve
observed a clear one, is when you have underground parking, which we all think is good, the code
encourages it, it makes it very difficult to have above ground large trees on the perimeter of a property.
You have this big concrete vault underneath. And that’s a conflict we’re seeing that hasn’t been really well
thought through. I think if I were a policymaker, I would appreciate getting that feedback. That’s what I
think we’re trying to do here, is be specific in the feedback we give, ideally relative to projects that have
gone through our process. But I think we are trying to say that there are policy issues, code issues, that
can be addressed. We’ve observed that. A lot of these projects chase out small businesses, and I don’t
know that… I guess that one is seen by everybody in the political process, when there’s a string of small
businesses upset about something. But to see it the way we do, the way the design chases it out, when
they’re forced to build, when the story height of a building are lower, it makes the spaces a little bit less
attractive to large commercial clients and more to small businesses, still. That’s a subtle nuance design
thing that Council may want to hear.
Board Member Lee: I agree. I think, you know, perhaps the way to frame it is that there are challenges
that, you know, there’s interlinking parts, and here’s some challenges. I go to what Amy suggested, in
terms of talking about objective standards in projects that involve multi-family housing or larger-scale
developments, and for those specific uses, I struggle, because there are issues in terms of land use, and
planning, and small businesses, for example, and small-scale buildings within a context, and development
that’s going to occur later. It opens a can of worms for me when we do this, and maybe the way to frame
it is just as you’re saying, that here’s some trends and challenges that we’ve seen this last year.
Chair Baltay: We want to put the worms in the can so they’re not all over the place. But I think they’re
there, and we have to face up to that, using that metaphor. Anybody else have other thoughts? We’re
trying to narrow down a list of things that we can discuss. After that, I want to see if we can get individuals
to agree to be behind one or two of these. One of these, hopefully.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I want to respond to your comment about aesthetics being subjective. I feel
like maybe there might be a way to reframe what I mean when I’m wanting to talk about this issue, because
it’s true, it’s kind of dangerous to talk about taste. We’re not really talking about architecture taste at all
because you’re right, that is subjective. But I think there are some basic… And maybe “aesthetic” is the
wrong word for this, so I’d be curious to see if you could help me try to drive at what I’m trying to get at.
But oftentimes, we’ll see, like, the first iteration of a project we’ll see will be very blocky and boxy, and I
have no other way to describe that that is just aesthetically unattractive and not what we want the future
of Palo Alto to be. Something that has no scale, that feels very massive and overbearing in the city. If
“aesthetic” is not the right word, I’m not sure what is. I do think we need to talk about scale and architecture
as it relates to improving the environment, because I think those projects that do come in front of us that
don’t have a regard, at least the initial stages don’t have a regard for that scale, there has to be something
where we where we can say this is not acceptable for Palo Alto. And context alone, I don’t know if it’s
enough.
Board Member Lee: I totally appreciate it, thank you. I think scale and massing and context are interlinked,
and aesthetics, if Board feels is important to retain, is a little more of a subjective term in my mind, but I
completely understand what you’re discussing.
Chair Baltay: Let’s take that topic, Osma. How do we phrase that to the Council? What are we actually
trying to tell them they should be aware of? Scale and design aesthetics are important? I’m having a tough
time understanding what we’re actually trying to say as an example. You want to take a particular building
and…? As David mentioned, we can show how a design evolves. Generally, as you’re saying, it breaks down
in finer, higher-quality design details and scale and massing and stuff. But I guess what I’m concerned
about is that’s kind of telling them something they already know, in a way, that we work hard to get
buildings better. What’s the takeaway from them as far as what they should do, how they should react to
it?
5.a
Packet Pg. 138
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Vice Chair Thompson: There are projects that have passed our review, and I don’t, honestly, I don’t know
the whole history of them. But there are projects that, you know, when they can’t get through us, they go
to Council, because they can’t get through us because aesthetically, we can’t approve them. And then,
Council goes ahead and approves them. That’s partially why I bring this up. And it’s not entirely why. Like,
there’s also just a good discussion to have about what the future face of Palo Alto is going to look at.
Should we bring up individual projects that we’re thinking of talking about?
Chair Baltay: Absolutely. I think the more we can be concrete and visual, the stronger our presentations
will be.
Vice Chair Thompson: There is an affordable housing project that came in front of us; I’m forgetting the
name, actually. It was…
Board Member Lew: Wilton Court.
Vice Chair Thompson: It came twice, right? They had a prelim where we were just giving feedback, and
then they had a first quasi that we passed on, that we approved them. And I think their improvement, from
what they showed us in the prelim to what we ended up approving, is a good example of something that
had some aesthetic flaws, let’s say, or some things that could be improved on, that they took our feedback,
and what we ended up improving was better.
Chair Baltay: You’re talking about, I think it’s Wilton Court. It was down in south Palo Alto on El Camino?
Vice Chair Thompson: Sure, yes.
Chair Baltay: A really large, boxy building, and they made substantial improvements on the design.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I think we’ve only had two affordable housing projects.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the only other one would be the VTA property that was workforce housing.
Chair Baltay: Take that project as an example. The Council was overly enthusiastic…well, not overly, but
highly enthusiastic to get that approved and pushed through. It was a great project for many reasons,
above and beyond the architecture. We felt the architecture was good, as well. What’s the takeaway from
Council? What are we trying to tell them about that project? That we made it better?
Vice Chair Thompson: Just that it’s coming ahead of time, just coming before the quasi-judicial, I think
help it pass, a lot. Because if it had come in the state that it was when we saw it in prelim, if that had been
the quasi-judicial hearing, I don’t know that all of us would have been as enthusiastic.
Chair Baltay: The informal process was invaluable.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think so.
Chair Baltay: I think we can all get behind that.
Board Member Lew: We’re looking at maybe not being able to have discretionary review for affordable
housing projects. I think that we should really look at, yeah, what the Board did, what the findings, what
were the findings. And I think maybe we should make a recommendation or a suggestion that, you know,
if we don’t have discretionary review for these projects, what should be added in our findings, or codes or
findings, or design guidelines?
Chair Baltay: I think that’s great, Alex.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, because the reality is that, even if we don’t have discretionary review for
affordable housing projects, they still may have to follow a guideline, or try to follow a guideline. I think it
5.a
Packet Pg. 139
City of Palo Alto Page 11
should be something, if there’s something missing in the El Camino Design Guidelines, or whatever
guideline, Downtown Guidelines, that we think it should be in there in the event that the Board isn’t
reviewing those projects in the future, that the City is comfortable with doing that.
Chair Baltay: A takeaway to the Council may be then – along the lines of what you were saying, Osma – in
the event that we’re talking about affordable housing projects, where our discretionary review may not
exist in the future, demonstrating to them the benefit that our discretionary review offers, maybe they
need to be cognizant of that when crafting objective standards in the future, is really important. We could
demonstrate to them that this review process made a huge difference, and that they really need to have
something in place. I think we want to keep that standard up.
Board Member Lee: I’m so sorry. Isn’t there already something in place, though?
Ms. French: Yes, so, we will be visiting with the ARB soon. Staff is in, you know, weekly meetings, basically.
We have a consultant… Sorry? December 5th, we’re going to be talking about this topic. It’s just going to
be after the joint meeting with the Council. Your awareness that this is a topic is a good one to acknowledge
in your meeting with the Council, that you’re looking forward to being part of that process.
Chair Baltay: By bringing it up, we’re just asking the Council for further support behind this process. We
maybe even should say that the ARB should be appointing a subcommittee to be integrating with staff as
you guys are starting to develop these policies, and two of us could be at the table with you, doing that.
It’s independent of what we’re here for directly, but I think Osma is bringing up some good points about
scale and the detail of design that we want to… Do we all agree that it doesn’t hurt to bring it to Council’s
attention?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: You do, Osma. What do we all think about that? If we say that’s one of our topics, is this
affordable housing design standards?
Board Member Lee: May I understand a little bit better in terms of what process there is in terms of design
review? Currently?
Ms. French: All projects are subject to architectural review, discretionary review, over a certain number of
5,000 square feet, but then there’s also the units. There’s a site and design review process that’s been on
the books, and that’s over nine units now, something…? We’ve increased the numbers for site and design.
Three units comes to ARB. Site and design, which then involves the Planning Commission and Council, is
when it’s over nine units. For affordable housing, I think that’s going to be changing as well. Yeah, we have
a lot of affordable housing projects in the wings. Actually, very recently, there’s been an influx of money
from private companies and all of this, so it’s kind of exciting. I got lost in answering your question, but
basically, we do have requirements for design review over three units that goes to the ARB, currently.
Board Member Lee: I’m just confused. Are we…? Since there already is design review in place for these
projects, and preliminary is often encouraged, what exactly are we…?
Chair Baltay: Our concern is that design review may be going away. State laws are now coming out where
we don’t have the option of getting discretionary design review on projects.
Board Member Lee: It’s basically for discussion on December 5th how the City might address this.
Ms. French: Yes, so that will be the first opportunity for the ARB to be involved in those conversations, and
there’s probably an opportunity – I think it’s a good idea, always – to have a subcommittee of members.
Ms. French: Now I understand. Thanks.
5.a
Packet Pg. 140
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Chair Baltay: I think, provided we keep this focused on the subject of affordable housing, we can make a
very strong statement about design review being important, and if there is no discretionary design review,
the City should be sure to supply something else, which would be some set of standards. And getting
Council aware of that is a good thing, and the kind of thing they wouldn’t ordinarily know about directly.
They’re not experienced in this. Does that sync with you, Grace? I can’t tell what you’re…
Board Member Lee: I’m just thinking about it, and I’m wondering if there’s a, you know, the subcommittee
might be the way to accomplish that kind of design review.
Chair Baltay: I think that’s right, it would be a subcommittee. It would be great interfacing with staff as
they develop these standards. But do you think it’s a good thing to bring to the attention of the Council?
Board Member Hirsch: Well, I think you’re right in pointing out that it’s a trend that the state regulations
now are sort of over our heads, looking like they’re pushing so hard that they’re pushing us right out. I feel
that pretty strongly as well. It also involves kind of general planning. Where’s all this housing going to really
happen in the city? And it seems to me that there should be some similar thought coming from Planning
and Transportation about where all this will be happening. In some way, I think we ought to be coordinating
with Planning and Transportation because our aesthetic is important to these aspects of change.
Chair Baltay: Absolutely. To Grace’s point, however, we want to not be the Planning Commission here, so
we just focus on the aesthetic issues that Osma is pointing out. That’s what we’re observing, and there is
a strong need to have some standards for how these buildings are being built. I think that’s a legitimate
point to make to Council, but I’m asking if everybody else here shares that opinion. Is this a good thing to
bring to the Council’s attention? Deafening silence here.
Vice Chair Thompson: Are you looking for a vote?
Chair Baltay: No, I’m not looking for a vote. It’s just a, do we all agree? What I don’t want to do is get
front of Council, and then, have two of us speak up, saying the opposite, and then they get nothing. Better
to all agree now, what we do agree on, and strongly say something. If we don’t have a majority in favor
of that idea, we should put it off the table. But as I understand it, the idea is that we want to bring to
them, one topic would be affordable housing design standards and the importance of having something be
objective or subjective. Can we all get behind that idea?
Board Member Lew: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yes.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Board Member Lee: I would agree. The reason why I’m cautious is because, having worked on affordable
housing, there’s significant hoops for those groups in terms of how they receive review. I just don’t want
to give the impression that we are going to add a hefty review process in addition to all of those hoops.
Perhaps we could talk about some type of liaison with staff to be a part of that process.
Chair Baltay: Absolutely. Those are very strongly taken points. Okay. Let’s try to pick another one that’s
easy here. We have the issue of the trees. I think I hear a consensus that, just continuing protection of
trees, and perhaps more explicit design standards regarding trees and parking, and perhaps… I don’t know
how you would do this, David, but clearly the Board benefits from having an experienced landscape
architect or capable person up here. I’m not sure that we can say much about that, except just to point
out the importance of it. Is there any consensus behind that vague set of ideas? Alex, can you maybe
phrase that better? What would our topic really be?
Board Member Lew: Just to follow up on David’s point. I don’t think we’ve ever had a landscape architect
apply to the Board. I’ve debated about that several times when we’ve had recruitment projects, or
recruitments. And then, I think the other thing, too, is that we have a whole urban forestry division, we
5.a
Packet Pg. 141
City of Palo Alto Page 13
have Peter Jensen, we have resources. You don’t have to rely fully on your knowledge, or lack of. I really
don’t have that much knowledge about landscape. You know, I think the issue with the trees and stuff, I
think is really very difficult to grasp unless you’re really looking at a plan or example. I think it’s very
specific. I think it, it may be difficult to talk about it generally. I could say, like, I know when the basements
are extending under all the buildings when I see a tree in a pot, and I start looking around and realize,
like, oh, like, this entire thing that I’m walking on is all concrete. So, I know. I hear comments from people
in the public saying, “I don’t like that project,” but they can’t really explain it. But then, when I go digging
around, I sort of figure out why they don’t like it. But I think this is something really difficult to discuss
unless we have an example, or examples, or photos of that. That’s, like, our new reality. We’ve got these
new hotels. They really only have shrubs around their perimeter. There’s no trees. I think we’re going to
face that pretty soon, when those buildings are built.
Chair Baltay: Same question to Osma. What’s the Council’s takeaway from those comments that trees are
impacted by underground parking?
Board Member Lew: So, [crosstalk]…
Vice Chair Thompson: That’s not okay.
Board Member Lew: Well, so, this came up with houses, and we don’t allow basements to extend beyond
the footprint of the house above ground. There are some exceptions, but…
Chair Baltay: Even under a front porch, they won’t let us do that now.
Board Member Lew: Yeah. Yeah, so, I don’t know. It seems to me an issue, I think it’s kind of difficult…
It’s a tricky one to discuss with the Council, I would think.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so, I agree, it’s a difficult issue. It’s tricky to explain. I think that could be done. I think
Osma’s jumping to say that it’s really important, which I think we all agree as well. David and Grace, what’s
your opinion about this tree question?
Board Member Hirsch: You know, the word “trees,” it seems that landscape is much grander than just
trees. Osma, you’re doing some landscaping kinds of things when you do urban improvements to
transportation. These things happen. Streets and trees are all kind of interconnected. There are trees and
streets, you know? I just think the topic of trees by itself is too amendable a description. It’s really, the
landscaping involves so many other aspects. Having kind of worked on urban street improvements, that
has to do with trees, as well.
Board Member Lew: For me, it’s not about streets. This is really about having a 50-foot building maybe
only, like 10 feet from the property line. Right? It’s very close to neighbors, and there’s no trees. That’s
what we have now in our current projects. We don’t have any landscape… Like, we have, if you put a
parking lot in, you have to put in perimeter landscaping. But if you have a basement that goes to the
property line or, say, like, five feet to the property line, you don’t have to do anything. There really isn’t a
standard in any of our zones because, especially in the CS zone, because we have zero setback. I think
that’s the issue. You mentioned the San Antonio hotel project, so that’s one of them. There are no trees
on the sides of the property. We just have shrubs and things in pots.
Chair Baltay: That’s because that basement goes right to the property line.
Board Member Lew: The garage extends…
Chair Baltay: Maybe three feet or something. [crosstalk]
Board Member Lew: Maybe it’s, like, five feet. And then, this parking, because they’re trying to fit in all the
parking so that they can maximize the floor area, as they are allowed to. They did come in with a parking
5.a
Packet Pg. 142
City of Palo Alto Page 14
reduction later. So, it’s not about trees; it’s about trees and parking, and underground parking, and floor
area. And it’s really just how, how does the city grow?
Chair Baltay: Okay, trees and parking. Grace, what’s your opinion.
Board Member Lee: I do think trees are important, I think landscape is important. I read here these issues,
“More explicit landscaping standards would be beneficial.” Is that something that we are requesting, that
there would be more explicit landscaping standards that the City would [crosstalk]?
Chair Baltay: I think Alex has phrased it a lot better than that.
Board Member Lee: Because I think that…
Chair Baltay: That statement seems a little vague.
Board Member Lee: Yes, and I’m not sure that’s what we’re requesting as a group. The ARB may weigh in
on requests for more landscaping, right? That’s something that we can weigh in on. And I wonder if, you
know, if you did want to highlight some of the terrific examples where you did weigh in and there was a
positive outcome. I think the joint meeting is a terrific opportunity to showcase a few projects where there
are challenges the city is facing, and here is some examples where the project that was approved was
improved for the benefit of all regarding to scale, context and massing. I understand that approach might
be helpful for Council to see, and maybe bring up those challenges.
Chair Baltay: You’re absolutely right. I think some of us are feeling that it hasn’t always been successful,
and we’ve had our hands tied by code and applicants who insist on the parking up to the parking line, and
then, we’re forced to accept less landscaping and trees at the perimeter than we know are necessary, but
we have…
Board Member Lee: Absolutely. I guess my feeling is, you know, sometimes a reduction of surface parking
is a positive change, and sometimes a parking garage where non-mature trees need to go away is, that
has to be weighed by the applicant and the City and ourselves. I guess I caution against these sentences
that sound like the Council might take away as, “Well, we just need to keep more surface parking with this
kind of tree request.” And since it’s such a short period of time, I wonder if we could provide examples of
projects where there was a positive recommendation and it worked out well.
Chair Baltay: Osma, what do you think?
Vice Chair Thompson: Oh, I have too many strong opinions.
Chair Baltay: That’s good, no, we want… This is the time to have them.
Vice Chair Thompson: So, it’s true. Obviously, it depends on the project, it depends on the trees. The tree
is unwell? Of course. It totally makes sense not to fight for something that’s already on its way out, say,
for example. But we have a lot of… I feel like we have projects that have very healthy trees, and it’s just
inconvenient. It seems like applicants, you know, the property line is like their hard, you know, we obviously
can’t go past the property line. But these beautiful trees that are extremely robust and healthy, we can get
rid of them because they’re not as important as that property line. I think that attitude is a problem.
Because I think our urban canopy should be a priority, and I think there should be something to say to the
City Council that it should be their priority, as well. Because it’s true, our hands are tied in a lot of ways.
We have applicants that are like, we want all these things, and the sacrifice is trees, and we have nothing
in our wheelhouse to say that’s… I mean, we’ve tried. I think with our last review, where we were saying…
Chair Baltay: [inaudible]
5.a
Packet Pg. 143
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Well, never mind. But, you know, there’s still… I don’t know. This is about
priorities. We have a list of findings that explain our priorities, and at the moment, our priorities are
summarized in landscaping. Right?
Board Member Lew: I’m sorry, when we revise findings, I make sure that we kept a provision in there
about existing, I think, like, existing resources, like an existing tree. It’s in the findings, so we can use it.
I’m just saying we have to use the findings when we don’t have an explicit landscape standard. It sort of
begs the question then, like…. It goes back to this, why don’t we have a landscape…? You know, what is
our landscape standard, and where is it deficient?
Vice Chair Thompson: And to be fair, you’re right, we have an urban forestry division. You know, I think
maybe the goal is really just to explain to the Council that these are trends that we are seeing, and so, not
necessarily that we have to reinvent anything. It’s just alerting them to, this is what’s coming up, our way.
Chair Baltay: Is it fair, Grace, to paraphrase what you’re saying by saying that the standards already exist;
our job is to enforce them, and we’ve been doing that, and we don’t need to change the standards as much
as we need to be firm in enforcement? And as projects go through, if we want to save these trees, we
have the authority to do that, we should be doing it?
Board Member Lee: I’m sorry. I guess I go back to what Alex said in terms of the findings, which we have
improved, is the direction that we go in terms of making those findings, and we have able-bodied staff
who… specialists who guide us. So, in my mind, it would be good to point out the trends and point out
some successful projects. Maybe that would illustrate that the trees and the public realm, the curb
management as it relates to parking, is very important to us, and we see this in many projects that come
our way.
Board Member Lew: Also, I think, Osma, it seems to me when we look at projects in our project packets,
that sometimes applications will review the tree removal in the arborist’s report, and sometimes they don’t.
It may be that we ask staff to include that in every project. We have a member of the public who is also
interested in the tree issue, so, if we could make that recommendation, as well. If you want more discussion
and review of the tree removal.
Board Member Hirsch: I want to point out that on the Wilkes Bashford, you know, we…
Chair Baltay: David, please don’t discuss projects currently being reviewed.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. On a recent project, we had that issue, and decided that actually, even though
it was a recommendation that we consider a tree removal, that we ourselves decided it would be better to
try to retain the tree. So, I think if there is a significant project issue, that we address it in that manner
when it is part of our standards to do so, even if the staff recommendation is different.
Ms. French: Can we jump in for just a second? I just want to make sure that we remember what we’re
aiming towards, is an hour-long meeting with Council, with seven council members and five of you. There’s
going to be a desire for feel-good moments with, you know, pictures and, you know, what’s working well
will be part of that. I think we’ll want to feel that connection over with the Council. To go down a road of,
you know, touching base with them and asking them to weigh in and confirm concerns, you know, that
should have, you know, Council direct staff, I mean, we definitely won’t have the kind of time during that
hour to have that happen. I’m just kind of calling that out. I wouldn’t expect this to result in Council directs
staff to go work on X, do code change, or whatever. Just wanted to bring that up. Make sure we’re not
thinking that’s going to be part of that meeting.
Chair Baltay: Well, I’m hearing that the issue of trees and parking is complex, and perhaps we already have
what we need from Council on those issues. We need to focus on it a little bit harder, maybe, if it’s
something we’re concerned about. I see Grace nodding her head with that statement. Does everybody
else…? That’s sort of taking it off the table. Are we resigned to that? Amy’s point is well taken. We spend
20 minutes discussing trees like we just did, and we’ve gotten nowhere.
5.a
Packet Pg. 144
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Board Member Hirsch: I like the way Grace put it before, that we could address through an example rather
quickly and save a lot of time on it.
Chair Baltay: Let’s jump then to something else. We were talking about design standards on San Antonio
Road, or the need thereof, and perhaps relating that even to design standards along El Camino. Is there
any way we can give them a clear sense of something about that? I know we feel that way. Building on
San Antonio, there’s a contextual requirement, and we can’t figure out what the context is. I think we could
use some guidance on that myself. Who else wants to say something?
Board Member Lew: Maybe that’s not appropriate for the Council at this time. Maybe we should discuss
that at a retreat, and then, let staff discuss it, and then, maybe bring it to the Council next time. I’m not
sure it’s ready for primetime. I think we should discuss it internally, and then, bring it to the Council.
Vice Chair Thompson: I would be fine with that.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, but you could bring it up to the joint meeting as an issue that we are concerned
about.
Board Member Lew: I think I would maybe put it in the letter as an issue, but not necessarily for the actual
meeting.
Chair Baltay: Are we agreed, then? Perhaps hold off on…?
Board Member Lee: I was just going to suggest that it would be terrific to see it written, that they could
read. Is there a way to talk about, not in terms of published design standards or a process, but we see
projects that benefit from some kind of collective thinking from a diverse group of stakeholders? The City
is growing, there are significant challenges ahead in many different areas in terms of uses along San
Antonio and El Camino Real. We would support working with Council on how to joint collaborate on this
effort in terms of some kind of guidelines that might benefit the City. I mean, is that general enough? I
feel like a lot of what’s written in your letter here, all these things relate to San Antonio and El Camino
Real. I know in my interview with the Council, I brought up our main boulevards and growth of the city,
and I feel like that’s a lot of what we’re going to be reviewing in the future. So, I don’t know. I feel like
maybe that is something to say.
Chair Baltay: The question, I think, is whether we do it now, or we wait until that hotel is finished. And
then, it will be glaringly obvious, I think.
Board Member Lee: Okay, yes, if you have a project in process that you’re weighing in on, I understand
why you might want to wait.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I think I agree with Alex’s concept, that maybe this needs a little more time to gestate.
Vice Chair Thompson: I just had a thought of, so, in terms of the plan of how we’re going to formulate this
PowerPoint, assuming that’s going to be what we do this time, presumably there will be slides that don’t
require much dwelling on. It could just be like, “Hey, we talked about this,” but obviously we’re not going
to go in depth. Maybe we could have some of these smaller… I say “smaller;” I just mean, you know, other
topics that potentially aren’t ready for primetime. That could just be kind of in one of those, like, these are
observations, we’re seeing this, we’re seeing this, and then… Sorry. Just going back to the structure of the
PowerPoint, that we could be like, you know, “Here’s an example of a project that went through,” and that
could give us, allow us to end on something that shows them our value, and also talk about the things that
we’ve seen that are trends, that we don’t necessarily need to fix right now, but just that we’re seeing them,
and we can look forward to seeing them later, as well. Since we’re obviously not trying to fix them right
now.
Chair Baltay: We could just point this out as an upcoming trend. I think we all agree this is an upcoming
thing. Maybe not get into the depths of it.
5.a
Packet Pg. 145
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s similar with the trees issue.
Chair Baltay: Let’s try to go through a few more of these. What I’d like to do, actually, big picture, is to see
if we can identify no more than five topics. Then I’d like to take a break, both… Take a break. Also, if we
can adjust the agenda, let these folks have their subcommittee hearing so they don’t have to spend all
morning here. Then we can reconvene and finish who is going to tackle what, and how we’re going to do
it. Are we all agreed on that?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, that’s fine.
Chair Baltay: The next item I think we should discuss is this concept of curb management. It’s something
I feel strongly about, that I think it would be really great to have more explicit standards. Over and over
again, we see projects that don’t address these issues, and as they are built, you can see it’s not functioning
very well. Take the Epiphany Hotel downtown. It’s a constant block up in front of… Hamilton Avenue at
certain hours is just not passable. There’s too many people stopping there, and it’s because we don’t have
a standard of how that works. Really, again, it’s parking. We have parking all along the curbside, and we
shouldn’t have that. But I think Council really needs to hear from us. We’re the ones who observe it as they
go through the design process. Do I have any other ideas on that?
Board Member Lee: I thought it was encouraging to see this example of, you know, example in other cities
that we may point to as kind of a learning opportunity.
Chair Baltay: Anybody else have a…? Can we put that one on our list of things? What do we think about
it? Alex?
Board Member Lew: Well, it seems to me this is one of those really… Transportation Division and PTC. And
I think we put it on here because it’s an issue, right? It’s not necessarily our issue.
Chair Baltay: Well, we need to be careful not to suggest a solution, but we’re pointing out a problem.
Board Member Lew: Right. I’m fine with pointing something out. And just leave it at that.
Chair Baltay: Absolutely, I agree. We’re not out to tell how to do something. We just see an issue. Does
everybody else agree that this is an issue, and this is warranted to bring to the attention of Council? David?
Board Member Hirsch: Just the way it’s stated, commercial delivery, more explicit standards for ride share
pickup and drop-off zone. Yes, I agree.
Chair Baltay: Do you recollect that building down on Cambridge Avenue, down in the California Avenue
district? A fairly large commercial building. And the code required them to have something of a 40-foot
drop-off space, which just wasn’t physically feasible on the building. The result is they had nothing, and
we really didn’t have any way to get them to make a smaller-scale drop-off that really would serve that
building. If I remember right, it was just a…
Board Member Lew: You know, the planning code has changed with regard to the loading zone, so I think
we’ve fixed that.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so maybe it’s been fixed for loading, but I still think it’s an important think that we can
point out examples to and put out there. Let’s see. I think I see two more topics here that we haven’t, that
we might be able to agree on. One of them, which is dear to my heart, again, is the parking situation at
the Stanford Shopping Center. I will acknowledge that that very strongly veers away from the Architectural
Review Board provenance, but I would point out that what we’re observing is many restaurants going in
there that are using a higher parking count, and therefore, the parking demands aren’t being met, and
other restaurants in town have a different parking standard, and it just creates an inequity that’s
bothersome, at least to me. But I agree that perhaps this is not an ARB issue, but I want to hear what
everybody else thinks.
5.a
Packet Pg. 146
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Board Member Lew: To me, it’s a thorny issue, because there’s a cap, and they’ve been juggling around
square footage, square footages, and decreasing parking. It’s a tricky one, but they’re still within their cap,
and they’re within the zoning code. It seems to me we’ve had projects, there have been proposals in the
past where we’re proposing a change to the cap. You know, there was one at one point where they were
proposing a hotel on the site. It seems to me, I guess the way I’m thinking about it is that you modify the
parking the next time you try to do a big project. Because right now, they’re sort of working within the
existing restrictions, and it seems to me that they are allowed to do that, just under, you know, if you’re
reading a narrow interpretation of the code, they’re allowed to do it.
Chair Baltay: Let me try to make the same argument Grace is making with the trees, then, that it comes
down to an issue of us enforcing strongly what we see. They are within the count at the shopping center.
However, it’s really not functional. There’s just way too many dead-end parking aisles, there’s way too
much demand on one end of the parking center, and much of that count is a quarter-mile away on the
second floor of the garage on the other side of the shopping center. I’ve been making the argument that
it’s not a functional requirement, which is Finding #4. I think if we don’t want to endorse it strongly through
our findings in our hearing, then it’s legitimate to tell the Council that we need a stronger change in the
code. What I’m arguing is that we should at least point out to Council that this issue exists. I don’t think
they or anybody in the public sees it. All everyone sees is that it’s hard to find a parking space at the
shopping center on Saturday. Why is that? It’s because there’s an influx of personal use-type businesses,
restaurants, which have higher demands, and a decrease in parking.
Board Member Lee: I’ll just say that, you know, Peter, we saw this in Town & Country when Trader Joe’s
came in. This does come up to the Board, and then, at the same time, I’m comfortable recusing myself
from talking about Stanford as an employer. But I think if all of you feel as strongly as Peter does, I
understand that it’s a trend that you’re seeing. I don’t know.
Chair Baltay: I think I might be the only one who feels strongly about it.
Board Member Lee: Okay.
Chair Baltay: I keep bringing this up.
Board Member Lew: Peter, I think the trouble I have with making a big issue is, like, I think most people
understand that if you try to go to any shopping center on a Saturday afternoon, it’s going to be crazy. It’s
crazy at Santana Row, or Valley Fair, or wherever; it’s like that. And personally, I don’t go on those days,
or, if I do go to the shopping center on a Saturday afternoon, I know exactly where I’m going to park. I
know exactly where in the garage I’m going to park, and I have no issues finding a space, because I know
where the spaces are. And I don’t try to go to spots where you’re trying to go, right next to the restaurants.
The issue is peak. You’re trying to argue for, like, peak parking, as I understand it. Am I not? You’re trying
to have a convenient spot right next to the restaurant at the peak time, and I don’t think that… It seems
like everything that I read in planning is not to do that. That’s actually the wrong, that’s the wrong approach
to parking.
Chair Baltay: I guess what really gets my goat on this all is that it just seems to really go against building
other downtowns in the area, because we’re giving the shopping center this big incentive to put restaurants
in the shopping center, and then, restaurants [crosstalk]….
Board Member Lew: It’s the same issue with downtown. We have a blend of parking downtown as well.
Chair Baltay: But the parking ratios are such that it’s easier for it to fit in than at Stanford Shopping Center.
That’s why you see so many restaurants going in there, in part. It’s very hard to put a new restaurant
anywhere else because of the parking requirement. That’s where parking is required. Think of Protégé
restaurant on California Avenue and the trouble they had to go through to create parking, just to be allowed
to open up. Because it was a new building, they had to meet parking requirements, and they have these
elevator lifts in the back. The owner was telling me, you know, there’s hundreds of thousands of dollars’
worth of car lifts that nobody uses, to meet the code. If they put that restaurant in a shopping center, they
5.a
Packet Pg. 147
City of Palo Alto Page 19
would have no issue. Money would be saved. That’s what I’m really driving towards, and that’s what’s not
really an architectural board issue, but it’s something I feel [crosstalk].
Board Member Lee: I just want to mention that whenever you add parking to an agenda to an hour-long
meeting with 12 people, it will dominate, so maybe we could just be very strategic in how we talk about
parking, or introduce that subject.
Vice Chair Thompson: I would say my two cents. I sort of feel closer to how Board Member Lew feels about
this parking issue. I’m definitely not… I don’t feel as strongly about the issue at Stanford Shopping Center
also, mainly because I also don’t go there on peak hours, and I usually bike there. But it’s kind of, it’s
definitely not in our purview. I would be open to mentioning it briefly, but I wouldn’t want to make that a
focal part of our conversation.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, pretty much the same feeling about it. It’s true of all shopping centers, that
they’re very crowded at certain times. It’s kind of nice, the fact that Stanford Shopping Center has
restaurants in it, and they can last after hours when parking is less common there. It’s not a bad location
to have some major restaurants, the way it seems to be working. And there are ways to solve the parking
that Stanford could utilize, you know, to increase the size of the garages. And they’re also implementing
present programs to get staff and people who work there to park in the garages. So, while I agree it’s an
issue – it’s a significant issue – we shouldn’t emphasize it too much in this discussion with the Council.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I think that’s all fair, that we should just take parking out of the subject for now. It’s
correct that it will dominate the entire meeting if we bring it up. It’s in our letter; we’ll leave it at that. The
last thing that I think we do have to discuss, if only quickly, is item G, basically the process, the architectural
review process. I think the Council is entitled to feedback from us. They changed these findings two years
go. How has it been working? I think we all feel it’s been relatively positive, but just to put that out there
to them is a good thing. Is there anything else on the process of architectural review that the Council
should hear from us? For example, we mentioned that the informal review process was useful. I don’t know
if that’s Council or staff, but is there anything that Council would want to hear about the ARB process? For
example, several times they’ve, say 429 University and the Mercedes building, they, I wouldn’t say
overruled us, but they tie our hands by approving half the building, and then say to us, “fix it.” Do we want
to give them feedback on that?
Board Member Lew: And we shouldn’t discuss Mercedes because it’s still out there. It’s not approved yet.
Chair Baltay: Does anybody else have any…? The concept of the review process, I think, needs to be in
our meeting, even if only quickly. Is there anything else we can add to that, aside from findings?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. You know, I’m a first-year member here, the only first-year member, and as a
first-year member, I want to say that I thought the process has been working so damn well in certain areas
here that we’ve discussed. I can’t name the project, I guess.
Chair Baltay: I agree [crosstalk].
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, Peter will stop me right away. I just think, when I feel comfortable in going
back home and saying, after a day of spending long, early hours here, that we’ve done very well in certain
areas. Maybe not on every project, of course. I don’t feel that way. But I feel the consensus idea here, the
way it happens with a group like this is quite incredible, and I’m happy to be a part of it, and feel it’s quite
successful. And that ought to be expressed in some way here, about how these findings are important to
us, and when we all look at them, we try to make a project work better, and we think we’ve been successful.
That should be a bit of an introduction to the Council meeting.
Chair Baltay: Are we all in agreement that the reduced changed findings have been a beneficial thing to
us?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
5.a
Packet Pg. 148
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Chair Baltay: I don’t know if you remember. There was about 20 of them before, David, and it was pretty
tough to keep track of for anybody. Yes?
Board Member Lee: This is only my second meeting back, but I think my sixth or seventh year, and I do
want to acknowledge that less is more, and the staff has been instrumental. I think we should acknowledge
that definitely when we talk about the process.
Chair Baltay: Is there anything else about the review process we want to bring to Council’s attention?
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t think I have anything.
Chair Baltay: Okay. What I’ve heard is that we’d like to discuss affordable housing design standards;
perhaps trees and… I can’t use the word “parking,” maybe, but… San Antonio design standards; curb
management; and the ARB process.
Board Member Hirsch: I want to ask a question, though, at this point. Where is there a commercial building
that we have been working on that is part of this?
Chair Baltay: I’m sorry…?
Board Member Hirsch: Is there any specifically…? About commercial buildings that we have been dealing
with at all?
Chair Baltay: Relating to the five topics that I just mentioned?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. When we’re talking about housing as a topic, why are we not talking about
commercial buildings?
Chair Baltay: What about commercial buildings?
Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible] and very successfully reviewed in part of the main piece of our work.
Chair Baltay: I’m sorry, David, I’m not understanding what you’re driving towards now. We want to discuss
with Council commercial buildings, in what regard?
Board Member Hirsch: Is there a mention of housing? Once again, we had housing that, you were bringing
up an issue of housing, specifically?
Chair Baltay: Yes, so, we’d like to discuss the potential need for some design standards for affordable
housing, and demonstrate how our review of other projects, with a discretionary review, has made a
benefit. That’s something…
Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, to Grace’s point, do we want to focus on affordable, or just housing in general? I
mean, I think the City as a whole is trying to encourage housing in general.
Vice Chair Thompson: I would say housing in general.
Chair Baltay: Housing in general, all right. What I’d like to do then is take a break, quickly, change our
agenda to let the subcommittee do its work; come back, and the objective will be to pick a member to help
with each one of these, to see if we can collectively come up with some examples of design standards. And
then, sort of set how we’re going to go about getting this all together. If everybody is agreed with that.
Can you wait a second, afterwards?
??: Yeah.
5.a
Packet Pg. 149
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Chair Baltay: Okay, so, let’s adjourn for a minute and let the subcommittee do their work. We’ll take 10
minutes.
[The Board took break and moved to subcommittee discussion off line.]
Subcommittee Items
6. 565 Hamilton Avenue [18PLN-00313]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That
was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Colors/Materials, Height and Trim
Band. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15332. Zoning District: CD-C(P) and RM-
40 (Downtown Commercial & Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project
Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@mgroup.us
[Board Member Lee left the meeting at 10:03 a.m.]
Chair Baltay: We’re going to pick up on agenda item number 3. We were just discussing our list of topics,
and I’d like to review that list once more and see if we are feeling good about it. As we had the break, I’ve
been thinking, we still have too many things here not…
Board Member Lew: And the Council may want to add to that.
Chair Baltay: Yes. And it is worth thinking that we are now going to be presenting this informally to Council
in advance. What do they want to see? And the Planning Director, too, perhaps. With that in mind, I think
that the concept of some sort of housing design standards, as Osma had been discussing, is important. I
think that the curb management issue is something we can specifically address that might work. And
maybe, Alex, you can make an argument about the way trees impact underground parking. I insist that we
put the ARB process out there as a very quick statement of how it’s working. The design standards for San
Antonio, probably just more than we can fit in an hour. Any sense on that?
Vice Chair Thompson: I just wonder how, on the PowerPoint, it’s going to get presented. I think we can
touch on even more than these things if it’s, like, a quick, “this is one of our observations; this is another
one of our observations; this is a third observation,” and then, we conclude. We can kind of, for example,
San Antonio design guidelines, or if we don’t, you know, we don’t have a solution for that at all yet, but we
can just mention that San Antonio is changing, and we might want to talk about what we want that to look
like.
Chair Baltay: Just a quick mention of it then. I’m just more and more leery that we have an hour with seven
council members who all like to speak. We can get lost really quickly. Or, we can really concretely focus on
something, get good examples of it.
Board Member Hirsch: I agree with Osma’s point of view. If you can weave the design, the ARB…
Chair Baltay: The ARB process.
Board Member Hirsch: … process in with specific projects somehow, you know, make that the beginning.
I’d rather put that first than any of the other topics that you’re discussing here. It’s the most important
one, in my mind, to really show how the process is working, how we work as a team, you know? And I
think it’s a highlight, and it will be very positive.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, that will be the feel-good moment, when we explain what we do. We all sort of enjoy
it, and we have made a difference. It’s quite concrete, and we can show that. This is our chance, though,
to tell them about things that need to be fixed as well. I think the more we can be concrete about that.
Vice Chair Thompson: [inaudible]
5.a
Packet Pg. 150
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Chair Baltay: Oh, yes, I’m sorry about that. Can we open the meeting to testimony from a member of the
public, if you’d like to say something?
??: [inaudible]
Chair Baltay: Oh, we didn’t see that. I tried.
??: [inaudible] much later, probably half an hour [inaudible].
Chair Baltay: So, for whoever is watching, we have a request from Mary Sylvester, and we’d love to hear
what you have to say. I’m sorry to be so formal, but you will have three minutes. If you could state and
spell your name for the record, please.
Mary Sylvester: Thank you, Chair and commissioners. My name is Mary Sylvester [spells name]. I’m a 41-
year resident of Palo Alto. I just have a few general comments to make about the study session topics. My
first comment, though, is to thank you all for your service, and to do this publicly, this thinking through
process of what you’re going to discuss with Council, I think it’s vitally important. And I want to thank staff
as well, to Ms. Gerhardt and Ms. French. They’re doing a lot of the hard work behind the scenes, and they
get a lot of grief from the public, myself being one at different times. So, thank you. I also think it’s
important to keep the study session in mind as to its goals. It’s to educate the Council, I believe, but also
the public. I’ve been to four study sessions over the last three years, and I have found them fascinating,
both for the degree of dedication that the commissioners show, but again, how they conceive of their
mission, and then, the interplay between the commissioners and the council. And sometimes topics have
gotten heated, particularly with the PTC and the Council. I was at one meeting where Asher Waldfogel –
and I’m sure he wouldn’t mind; he handled it beautifully – and Greg Sharp [phonetic] got into a rather
heated discussion, but, again, it gave the public a sense of their thinking. Okay. And I want to comment. I
want to thank Ms. French for her framing. One hour is not long, and I think it’s very important that you
both have the feel-good moments, as well as the challenges facing the community, and your
recommendations. Ms. Lee’s comment about coordination and how you work with the PTC, for instance,
the public wants that transparency. How does coordination go on between urban forestry, PTC, ARB, HRB?
And that’s a process issue, but it also goes to a larger mission, I believe, of the City. That was a vital part
of the planning meeting for the new Council this year, where they were talking about transparency being
integrated into every goal they adopt for this new year. And one of the key goals was sustainability and
climate change, so Commissioner Thompson’s comments about trees, scales, materials, fit in beautifully to
the sustainability and green goals the Council adopted in 2019 for the next year. Along with that scale,
materials. Aesthetics, maybe it went off to the side, but I think that’s where your refined eye comes in. I
caution you about endorsing underground garages. And I’m prejudice. I’m a neighbor of Castilleja school
that has one planned, but we know the Council this year rejected the downtown underground garage, for
a number of reasons. But there is an impact on groundwater, there’s foundational impacts on neighbors.
Commissioner Lew, I loved your comment on mobility. We have huge demographic changes. I’m turning
65 within a month. I feel the changes in the walkability and livability of this city. And lastly, the idea of a
case study that integrates your thinking and that feel-good movement, such as Wilton Court. It’s interesting
for the public to hear not only your thinking, your goals, but how the project was improved. Because many
of us, if you’re not involved with the actual project, you don’t know a lot about affordable housing and the
ARB process. I think it’s an interesting movement to integrate both affordable housing, housing issues
generally – and again, you have just a few minutes, but make mention of it – and then, how the ARB
process has made for a better project for the community. Thank you very much. It’s been a fascinating
opportunity to observe your thinking.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much for your comments. Those are well thought through. Okay, gang,
affordable housing design standards. Seems to me the Wilton Court project is the posterchild you want to
talk about. Osma, you’ve been vocal about it. Do you want to take on…? You’ll have to work with staff to
collect images to do a before and after and show the effect of design review.
Vice Chair Thompson: Sure.
5.a
Packet Pg. 151
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Chair Baltay: Does that sound…? Are we in support of that idea? Alex, what do you think?
Board Member Lew: I wouldn’t limit it to Wilton Court.
Chair Baltay: Let’s think of some other projects, then. What other…?
Board Member Lew: There are a couple issues I think we want to just touch on. One is, so, with affordable
housing projects, it’s likely that we’re not going to get ground floor retail on them. Like, on Wilton Court,
we have, there are ground floor communal uses, right? But say, like on 801 Alma, it’s ground floor
residential, which is [inaudible]. At least in my mind, it’s not desirable to have, like, your bedroom window
on the sidewalk. I just want to bring up issues, just general issues like that, where the Board has struggled
in the past. Like 801 Alma, the children’s playground was put on the shady side of the building. You know,
there was a reason for that, but, you know, it’s not desirable, generally. You normally would put that in
the sun.
Chair Baltay: That’s something Osma might have been involved in. How about the one on the corner of
Page Mill and El Camino? There’s a large housing building.
Board Member Lew: I want to say workforce housing is a little different, it’s a different overlay. That’s, like,
a public facility with workforce housing overlay, so that’s a little different than affordable. But we can put
them together. I just want to make sure we understand there’s [crosstalk].
Chair Baltay: Well, just to give Osma some direction as to which projects we think you might want to be
looking at.
Vice Chair Thompson: Maybe I can work with Alex on this. We can kind of… Is it possible for us to tag
team?
Chair Baltay: Whatever you folks want to do. If the two of you want to tackle this together. I’m thinking
that we have too much stuff here. I want to get us to focus.
Board Member Lew: I agree.
Chair Baltay: The more we can just say, let’s just look at this housing issue and not try to stretch our
boundaries. So, if Alex and Osma together want to come up… What I envision is that each part of the
Board will work on part of this, and perhaps present a series of PowerPoint slides, or some other structure,
that we can then integrate into one thing that staff can help us be ready to present at the meeting. And
then, each Board member will speak regarding this topic that they’ve prepared.
Board Member Lew: I’m happy to help as much as I can. In the next, for that week in December, we have
the ARB, and I also have Ventura that same week, and our joint Council meeting. So, I may not be able to
help that much, but I will do as much as I an.
Chair Baltay: You should explain that to your partner, not to me. I’m going to expect the two of you to
come through on what was agreed.
Board Member Lew: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: I was going to suggest that we also loop in the trees thing because it’s sort of
related.
Board Member Lew: Umm….
Chair Baltay: Focus, focus, focus, Osma. It’s really important. You have seven council members in one
room; it’s just very hard to get things done.
5.a
Packet Pg. 152
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Board Member Lew: I think the affordable housing issue is sort of… I’m thinking that it’s on their mind, and
I think it’s on the community’s mind, and I think the tree thing could be pushed back to another meeting.
Vice Chair Thompson: You don’t think it could just be like guidelines, or just like, “Hey, by the way.”
Board Member Lew: I think it’s fine to highlight it as an issue, but I wouldn’t… I’m thinking, like, not
dwelling on it.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, no, not dwelling on it.
Board Member Lew: If you really want to discuss something, then I think it should be the housing.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, there could be mentions of topics, issues coming up, or something like that.
For consideration. One sentence long kind of comment about some other pieces that we’re concerned
about, without making it a topic.
Chair Baltay: Well, I would like to, myself, just bring to Council’s attention the ARB process. Make the
statement that I think the findings are working. I’d like to make a statement that the ARB awards are
coming up, and it’s been positively received in the past, and we’d still like to do that. It doesn’t have to be
a lot. In that same statement, I could also make a statement about the San Antonio design standards;
there’s going to be a need for that in the future. Not do any more than that. No discussion whatsoever, if
we feel that we want to have it mentioned someplace. But I don’t want that to become a big show.
Alternatively, we could make the ARB process about demonstrating our process and show one or two
design projects, with a couple of slides showing the improvement. That’s a feel-good kind of thing;
everybody likes to see it. If there’s a sense that we should be doing that, that’s the place to do it.
Board Member Lew: On San Antonio, I think maybe, I think there are a couple things that we should… I
think we should maybe consider enlarging…
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Board Member Lew: …that, mostly because we have, the Council’s sort of gone back and forth over the
years. For a while, they didn’t want the housing there, and then, they decided that they do want to put
housing there. It’s commercially zoned. The condominium neighbors want, you know, they have their own
opinion about wanting residential. So, I think maybe we just, it’s not just design, but I think it’s actually
planning. It seems to me it’s a planning issue. And then, we have projects that, like the Affordable Housing
Project, is trying to fit in pedestrian-friendly things, but it’s actually auto, you know, the zoning is automobile
based. I think I would just mention that and not make it a huge discussion point. Just say it’s out there.
There are big issues.
Chair Baltay: The more I think about it, the less I think there’s a value in just saying it’s out there. I mean,
it just dilutes the message. If we want to deal with this affordable housing design stuff, that’s a real,
legitimate, strong thing that we can make a good case for, and we can really get behind it. And we could
easily spend an hour talking about that. I think we should focus as much as we can on what we think is
really important. San Antonio is an enormous planning issue, something the City has been wrestling with,
and I don’t know that there’s too many design issues. I mean, that hotel is going to be a shining design
example of what happens with a 2.0 FAR hotel on that street. We could go through the design cases and
show how we stepped it back and we made it better. I’m not sure it’s good enough, and I’m not sure how
the policymakers in the City want to later reflect on San Antonio Road. But is now when we really want to
be bringing that up?
Board Member Lew: We can [inaudible], because we have one… Well, there is one affordable housing
project on San Antonio Road, right? And we shouldn’t discuss it because it’s out there. But we could just
include that in the affordable housing… I would just maybe put it in there, saying that in addition to, like,
the affordable housing on El Camino, that we have one on San Antonio Road as well.
5.a
Packet Pg. 153
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Chair Baltay: Absolutely.
Board Member Lew: And just fold it in, that San Antonio is part of our El Camino, that we lumped it in
together with El Camino and affordable housing, and not have it as a separate topic.
Chair Baltay: I think if you could fold that in with any discussion of the housing design standards, that
would be successful. I’m becoming of the opinion that the subject of trees and parking and how they’re
related is just not going to work, and the San Antonio design standards on its own is just too much. But
I’d still like to see David give us some examples of where better curbside management and design can
make a difference. I think that’s a shortcoming that a lot of projects have that’s very solvable, and it’s very
current. Is there consensus on that? Let that be the second subject?
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t know how much there is to talk about that.
Board Member Lew: I’m thinking that the, so, in addition to the transportation networking companies, that
we have had issues with the buses and the hotel projects. There are community concerns about the bus,
like…
Chair Baltay: Maybe we’re just adding our voice to something everybody is starting to see. That that’s
appropriate.
Board Member Lew: Right.
Chair Baltay: It seems to me it’s something we can concretely point out that we’ve observed.
Board Member Lew: I think we can point it out. I think the Council understands that there’s a transportation,
sort of revolution coming. I think they understand that. I think we could point out that it’s impacting
architectural projects.
Chair Baltay: You think it’s superfluous? Should we just not spend …
[crosstalk]
Board Member Lew: …I think you can mention it.
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s fine to mention.
Chair Baltay: David, are you okay taking that on, to find some examples? Give some advice on where to
go with it, then?
Board Member Hirsch: We discussed Cambridge Avenue, which was one of those areas where Peter in
particular was concerned about the issue of deliveries and curbside. And yes, I see the problem kind of
citywide, with the trucks that pull up, and delivery trucks, UPS kind of trucks. And even in the
neighborhoods, how mail delivery works with parking issues. In particular, I think that there are a number
of narrow streets that have problems that way, so I think a transportation study is important.
Chair Baltay: Can we suggest some projects that…? I think it was 400 Cambridge. Do I remember the
number right?
Board Member Hirsch: Cambridge, definitely.
Chair Baltay: It was a large office building.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Steve Pierce designed it.
5.a
Packet Pg. 154
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Board Member Hirsch: You know, to add to this, maybe the Council isn’t that aware of some of these issues,
and pointing it out is important.
Chair Baltay: That’s the purpose of this, as I see it, is to point out [crosstalk].
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I mean, I just think that they’re not aware.
Chair Baltay: What other projects?
Board Member Lew: Well, it’s come up a lot on quite a number of projects, but I’d mention, the zoning
code has been… It’s already been updated. And then, I think maybe on curbside management, I think you
do want to highlight is changing, and changing rapidly. As an example, we have, like, Amazon, and then
also, the post office is delivering Amazon packages, and they do it seven days a week, all hours of the day.
Chair Baltay: And [inaudible] control it. How about the Hotel Parmani? Didn’t they actually have a fairly
successful way to direct traffic visitors, guests, off the street? If I remember right, we worked with them
to get around, off Hansen Avenue, they had a pretty good-sized turnaround area that I thought worked
pretty well. But that was through our encouragement, not through the code. Am I remembering that
correct?
Board Member Lew: They have a porte-cochere, and I think there’s a way of… People are saying that you
can have a designated, you can designate a drop-off point for those companies.
Chair Baltay: Well, they’re even doing that down in Los Angeles now, at the airport. I’ve seen… Jodie and
Amy, do you have any ideas of what we might do if this topic is to go through?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think Hotel Parmani is a good one. That one has been already through the process. We
have another hotel that we’re working on, but that one is still pending, on El Camino. Yeah, others aren’t
coming to mind, but I can certainly look further into this. And also, too, don’t hesitate to ask us. We should
have the initial plan sets and the final plan sets for all of these projects, so just let us know what addresses
you’re looking at.
Vice Chair Thompson: How about, just because I want to move this along a little bit, maybe we just take
a stab at the slides that we’re kind of getting assigned, and then, I know we’re not meeting on the 21st,
but maybe we can… I don’t know. Are we allowed to share that by email to each other? Like, how can we
coordinate? What’s the protocol here?
Board Member Lew: It’s not a project. You know? That’s the issue. You don’t want to have, like, a private
meeting about it, you know, deciding on a project, but this is not… This is just…
Vice Chair Thompson: We’re making a PowerPoint.
Board Member Lew: Yeah.
Vice Chair Thompson: Should we all send our slides to Amy, or something? Or should we all send our slides
to one of us? Jodie? And then she’ll compile, kind of thing?
Board Member Lew: I think we still want to do it through staff because that way there is a record of it, so
if some member of the public wants to see it, that there is a way for staff to share it. If we send it privately,
there’s no way for the public to see it.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, so, how about we just all send our slides to Jodie, and then, maybe we get a
chance to review it? I don’t know if we can set up some kind of profile where we can mark up ideas, and
then, have, like an incorporation, having a…
5.a
Packet Pg. 155
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Chair Baltay: Let me come back to that in one second, Osma, because I’m trying to list projects first. I
want to do one more thing, and then we can get into the process. I’ll be very quick; I promise you.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay.
Chair Baltay: But if we wanted to look at the ARB process itself and pick one or two projects where we
reviewed and made changes, felt it was suggested, what would we recommend? Which projects do we
think that we can feel good about the change in the design, and that we have good imagery?
Board Member Hirsch: Cambridge, for one. Cambridge Avenue.
Chair Baltay: Four Hundred Cambridge is one?
Board Member Hirsch: Hmm-hmm.
Chair Baltay: I don’t know that they have any changes though, David, from that design.
Vice Chair Thompson: No, they did.
Board Member Hirsch: You did.
Chair Baltay: They did?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, they had…
[crosstalk]
Board Member Hirsch: And certainly curb management…
Chair Baltay: Give me two others so we have something to choose from.
Vice Chair Thompson: Well, I think the affordable housing one that we talked about, Wilton Court…
Chair Baltay: Wilton Court was a good one, okay.
Vice Chair Thompson: …is a good example. Shall we just pick one more?
Board Member Hirsch: Alex, you have to come up with one now.
Board Member Lew: I made a list of projects, but I don’t have it in front of me at the moment.
Ms. Gerhardt: I can send you… Would it help to get a list of past projects? And how far back?
Chair Baltay: The best way to do this would be to not have a separate discussion of the ARB process, but
to have that be integrated into the discussion about the things we’re really trying to say. On Wilton Court,
we can use that as an example of not just the ARB process, but where we think design standards are
important. And 400 Cambridge, we can, again, use it as an example of the design process, but also this
need for curb management. If we can do it that way, that’s even better. If we’re all agreed that those two
projects are ones that we want to focus on, I’m happy we’re focused.
Board Member Hirsch: This is an hour, right? We have an hour, and we’re going to make a presentation
first, and then there’s going to be discussion, and Council…
[crosstalk]
Chair Baltay: I think we have, like, five minutes of presentation.
5.a
Packet Pg. 156
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Vice Chair Thompson: I think we’re probably good then.
Chair Baltay: Let me suggest that, one person needs to be the point person on the ARB to assemble – the
way we did the letter, sort of – to assemble everything into one presentation, and then, we could all
collectively keep reviewing it. Alex’s point about going through staff by email was important, and I think if
we just copy staff and ourselves, we can get that together. And then, Jodie can formally say, “Here’s the
draft,” so it’s going through the staff again. Does that make sense?
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, so, just to clarify. We would work on our individual slides, and then, send that
to one person and cc Jodie?
Chair Baltay: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: And then, give ourselves a few days to review it and incorporate any changes, and
then, when we feel comfortable, we can publish that for public review?
Chair Baltay: I don’t think we need to publish for review. It will go on the agenda for the meeting, whenever
that’s noticed. The agenda packet will have the presentation in it, probably.
Vice Chair Thompson: Jodie, when do we have to be done with that?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, because the Council has a two week… Is it a two week lead time for Council
meeting packets? Yeah. It’s not far off.
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s, like, end of next week.
Ms. Gerhardt: Sorry, I’m looking that up. Just a second. This is for December 2nd, presentations, when staff
is doing presentations, they’re due 11/28. Because those are reviewed by the Director. I don’t know that…
But if we can do 11/28, that would be great.
Chair Baltay: Today is the 7th, so, in three weeks’ time, we have to have this completed. Why don’t we say
in one week’s time, Osma and Alex will put together 10 slides, and whatever verbiage supports…? About
three minutes of presentation? Does that seem about right? It’s not a lot, but you want to really focus and
narrow it down. Staff can help you dig up records. I have a pile of… I’m sure I have those drawings, but
that’s available for you, readily. And we’ve agreed that Wilton Court is the example we’re focusing on,
unless you come up with something better. David, same thing to you regarding 400 Cambridge and curb
management. Grace had to leave, but she offered to help wherever we thought best. Would you like her
to partner with you on that, or is that just more trouble than it’s worth? In one week’s time, you can barely
get anything together.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, if… Yeah, I think Grace has limited time, frankly. She’s pretty busy.
Chair Baltay: Maybe we should switch it around then. Ask Grace to just address the issue of how our
findings have been successful. She’s one of us with experience with past findings; I’m sure she can, with
some legitimacy, just… I guess that’s not true, though, because she hasn’t worked with the ones we have
now.
Vice Chair Thompson: Maybe you can work with her on that.
Board Member Hirsch: You know, what impressed me today, first time I’ve heard Grace talk, is her
generality. She’s looking at things in a very broad picture, and her language is very, very good for that. I
would love to have her sum up in some way.
Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s get her to do that. Okay. David, you’re going to prepare another, a maximize of
10 slides and three minutes’ worth of verbiage for the issue of curb management and [crosstalk]…
5.a
Packet Pg. 157
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I could weave it in, as I think Osma suggested, weave it in to Cambridge, you
know? And just say that curb management, and this is a specific problem that we see more generally in
the city.
Chair Baltay: And maybe we say that on these two project examples. We’re also, as you’re discussing it,
you mention the process of architectural review and how the changes occur in the project that you’re
presenting. We don’t do that separately.
Board Member Hirsch: Hmm-hmm.
Chair Baltay: Are we supportive of that?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so, one week from now, what I suggest is that you email to me and to Jodie. What I’ll
do is try to put it all together, or give feedback. The idea would be, after a week, we can prepare a
preliminary draft of the whole thing, and everybody can comment on it once more. Additionally, we may
have additional feedback from the Council this afternoon, so we’ll keep everybody abreast.
Vice Chair Thompson: Are we all comfortable using PowerPoint? Or should we use, like, PDF’s, send PDF’s,
or Word files? I’m just wanting to clarify the medium.
Board Member Lew: I’ve had problems in the past using different versions of PowerPoint with the City, like,
doing my own computer, and then, coming to the City’s, and it wasn’t 100 percent compatible. I don’t know
what the problem is, but there were different versions.
Chair Baltay: Hopefully, the last week is to…
Board Member Lew: Yeah. But the other option is just collecting images and letting… No? Staff? You guys
don’t have the manpower. Shall we make everything, make the entire presentation, like, graphics, on top
of the photos?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I mean, I’ve got Office 365. That’s the version of PowerPoint that I have, so if that’s
what others have. Or, usually if you have a little bit older than that, it should be okay. I think PowerPoint
would be fine, and even if you gave me PDF’s, I can move it to PowerPoint.
Chair Baltay: Let me suggest that, send in PDF’s, image files of any kind, text of any kind; I’ll put together
the PowerPoint slides for the start, so we have a consistent format and graphics. And then we can all
comment and change it as we like. The initial feedback within in a week is just the data, the content. After
that, it will be a PowerPoint file that we’re circulating, and we edit that directly. Do we all agree with that?
Vice Chair Thompson: But if we wanted to send you a PowerPoint, we could.
[crosstalk]
Chair Baltay: Whatever is easiest for you.
Vice Chair Thompson: All right.
Chair Baltay: We’re focusing on content the first week. The second week is editing and review. Third week
will be just to make sure we have it all together. Any other comments, Jodie? Have we covered this to
death?
Ms. Gerhardt: There was the parking and the trees. Is that just going to be, maybe wove them into the
housing discussion?
5.a
Packet Pg. 158
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Chair Baltay: I think we’re going try not to discuss it.
Vice Chair Thompson: And I think we’re going [inaudible].
Chair Baltay: Affordable housing.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Touch on it briefly.
Chair Baltay: Touch on it briefly.
Ms. Gerhardt: And then, so, did you have a time limit for your ARB process, sort of discussion you were
going to have? I have three minutes for housing, three minutes for curb management.
Chair Baltay: I’m envisioning the ARB making a presentation of less than 10 minutes total time with us
talking. After that, it’s up to the Council on how they want to run this. We might find more this afternoon.
I’d like us to be succinct, focused, prepared.
Board Member Hirsch: Do I assume, Peter, you’re going to do an intro to the whole thing to begin with?
How is that going to work?
Chair Baltay: I imagine so, but we’ll find out today how the mayor wants to run the meeting. It’s their call.
Vice Chair Thompson: The first week of December, we have two meetings. We have the one on the second,
and one on the fifth.
Board Member Hirsch: I would think you should start off, then, with how we use the findings, you know?
Some description of that. [inaudible] they understand exactly how we proceed with our meetings.
Chair Baltay: I was thinking to wrap up with that instead.
Board Member Hirsch: Oh, yeah? I think it’s better to start with it?
Chair Baltay: Better to start with that?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Vice Chair Thompson: Once you get all the content…
Chair Baltay: As we put it together, we’ll realize when we all edit it together. It’s really important that it’s
something we can all support, that we’re not feeling compelled to say things outside of our presentation
when we’re talking to them. With that, agenda item number 3 is finished.
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2019.
Chair Baltay: We now have to move on to minutes of October 3, 2019.
Ms. Gerhardt: And I did just want to note for the record that Board Member Lee was excused at 10:03 this
morning.
Chair Baltay: That’s correct, thank you. Assuming everybody has reviewed and agreed with these minutes,
I’ll be looking for a motion to approve.
5.a
Packet Pg. 159
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Board Member Lew: I just have one correction. It’s on packet page 20. I was speaking, and there’s just
one word in the minutes, which is “rigorous,” and I said “vigorous.” That’s what I intended to say. I would
make a motion that we approve the minutes as corrected, if there aren’t any other corrections.
Chair Baltay: Well, if you’re into that level of detail, Alex, on page…
Board Member Hirsch: Now that you’re mentioning words, Alex, I have to go back into our…
[crosstalk]
Chair Baltay: … on page 34, Alex, the landscape architect, is bringing up, I think a “corsis” as an oak tree,
not a “cersis.” It’s halfway down. The transcriber just didn’t understand what you’re referring to on two
trees.
Ms. Gerhardt: Where is that?
Chair Baltay: Page 34, in the middle of the paragraph where Alex is talking about trees. It says, “I think
there are two T-1 trees. One is a cercis and one is a sultus.”
Board Member Lew: You know, I think that is…
Chair Baltay: Can you enlighten us what you really were referring to?
Ms. Gerhardt: Oh, there is a phonetic spelling there.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, if you’re going to be that…
Ms. Gerhardt: What are the tree names?
Board Member Hirsch: … I want to go back to packet page 13…
Ms. Gerhardt: Just a second, David.
Board Member Hirsch: On page 13, if you look down, there’s a word, “TDM require regular and complaint-
based monitoring,” rather than “compliant.”
Chair Baltay: That’s not in the minutes, David.
Board Member Hirsch: I know it’s not, but [laughing].
Chair Baltay: David, please hold on, hold on, hold on.
Board Member Lew: Okay, you’re correct. The “cercis” is correct, and the “sultus” is, I think probably… I’ll
double check. It’s probably c-e-l-t-u-s…? Or celtus…? I’d have to look tree name. But, yeah, the phonetic
one is not correct. It was saying there’s an oak tree, a [inaudible].
Chair Baltay: That’s what I assumed, yeah.
[crosstalk]
Board Member Lew: The oak tree comment I had was about the existing tree, and that was different than
the tree T-1 on the…
Chair Baltay: Okay, so, with those two…
Board Member Lew: … landscaping plan.
5.a
Packet Pg. 160
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Chair Baltay: … corrections from Board Member Lew, and a motion from Board Member Lew to approve,
do we have a second for that motion?
Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second.
Chair Baltay: Okay. It’s moved and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 4 to 0.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 4-0.
Chair Baltay: That’s the end of that item. Now, Board Member Hirsch, you were pointing out a typographic
or spelling mistake on a previous agenda item?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, on packet page 13, I think that…
Chair Baltay: That’s on the item we just finished, right?
Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible]
Chair Baltay: Let’s take that off line…
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, if you’d like.
Chair Baltay: … between you and staff. I don’t think there’s any point to going back to that.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, that’s fine.
Chair Baltay: I think, then, we finished the subcommittee, so we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
Board Member Lew: Uh, North Ventura [inaudible]?
Chair Baltay: I am sorry. We are not adjourned. We are not adjourned. So sorry; I apologize, Alex.
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP)
Chair Baltay: A report from the Ventura…
Board Member Lew: Yes, so, there was a meeting on October 29th. The consultants are not back on the
project yet, but we did have a meeting, and we did hear from a new consultant on the scope of work
they’re going to do for naturalizing the creek in the area. And then, the committee did work on developing
three alternative schemes that will be developed later. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for
December 5th.
Chair Baltay: Are those schemes available to the public yet, or…?
Board Member Lew: No. The consultant’s not started working on the alternates. They’re just starting to
develop, you know, they haven’t been working on the project, but they are going to start developing three
alternatives.
Board Member Hirsch: Well, Alex and I have something to discuss, some thoughts that I had going forward
on the planning. If I come up with thoughts, I think it’s important that Alex take a look at it. He’s our
representative on this project, so, I’m not intending to interfere with the formal way in which we’re
presenting ideas, except that through Alex’s help, I sent him a number of ideas that I’m working on.
5.a
Packet Pg. 161
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Chair Baltay: Well, I would think what’s appropriate is that Alex is the representative of the ARB on this
committee, so his title then should be listening to comments the ARB has to make, and from that, form an
opinion of how he represents what we’re thinking. So, if you have comments to make, it would be wise of
you to…
Board Member Hirsch: Share them?
Chair Baltay: … share them with Alex, either now, or if it’s complex or detailed, somehow in advance of a
meeting, so we can all see it in writing.
Board Member Hirsch: Are you saying…? Are you saying I should share them with the other board members
here first?
Chair Baltay: Not necessarily first, but you should make known what you’d like the Board to be represented
with Alex, and I think the other board members would like to know what it is, because we want ultimately
Alex to be representing a majority of the opinion of the Board.
Board Member Hirsch: Excellent. Okay.
Chair Baltay: Is that correct?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, and then, I think my understanding is with the City Planning staff, is that the
North Ventura Plan will come to the Board for some comment, you know, on certain scope of the project,
but maybe not the entire scope. It would be the parts of the project that the Board would have purview
over. So, the Board will have an opportunity to comment on it.
Chair Baltay: Do you think it’s appropriate or useful, Alex, for David, for example, to offer suggestions or
comments regarding the way the process is going or what the content is now? Or is it best to give that to
you in writing, separately? What do you think is useful?
Board Member Lew: Okay, well, I think he already has, and that’s fine. I think a little bit of it is outside of
the scope of the planning process that is, that the Council has given us. But that’s fine.
Chair Baltay: David, you have offered suggestions to Alex and those have been offline of the Board, just
between the two of you?
Board Member Hirsch: Just between the two of us. I suppose I’d be prepared to share it with everybody if
Alex thinks it’s reasonable.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, so, David, I mean, it’s just, as an example, like, you’re proposing, like, bicycle
routes between Ventura and Barron Park, and that’s outside of the scope of the project boundaries that
the Council has given us. So, I think it’s important, but it’s not like we have any, we don’t necessarily have
any say over that. Unless it’s within the project boundaries.
Board Member Hirsch: In fact, the entire comments were probably outside the scope because I’m saying
influences that are outside the scope are influential on a particular project that’s been bounded and
presented to the group to study. And if you don’t look at the elements that affect it from the perimeter,
the fact that, you know, that Stanford Park is there, and all of the office development around it is impacting
this area, as well, and in fact, is kind of invading it in some ways right at this moment. The park housing
was a mix of retail, of offices and residential. Seems to me to be an influence of what is affecting the
project. Alex, if you agree that it’s okay to do so, I’d like to share it with the rest of the Board, these
thoughts, and let us as a group discuss it separately.
Chair Baltay: What I’d like to do is leave Board Member Lew in charge of how we discuss this topic, in the
sense that over the course of this committee being formed and functioning, we should be giving Board
Member Lew our comments and thoughts as we see appropriate. Each time we discuss this as a meeting,
5.a
Packet Pg. 162
City of Palo Alto Page 34
when it’s been agendized like this, it’s up to Alex to decide which things he thinks he should formalize
within the whole board. For example, Board Member Hirsch brought up this issue, “which I think is
important, I’d like to make you aware of what I’m thinking.” If he doesn’t feel it’s germane or relative to
his issue, I would rather not have us second guess that judgment right now, but rather leave it to Board
Member Lew to spearhead our representation on this other committee. And then, I don’t know. I think
that’s just the most practical way to bring that up. Alex, obviously David has some opinions you should be
sharing with us, but I’ll leave that to your judgment.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think it’s a tricky one, because I think the things that David brings up are
important. They are planning issues. But again, it goes back to the ARB’s purview and our scope, and that
we actually have a planning commission and city council that do address issues that he’s brought up. It’s
not necessarily our place. We can acknowledge them. I think we just… Just generally, I think I understand
that the City loves, the City and [inaudible] really love to study and plan everything, and we have huge,
enormous planning documents for some of the areas in Palo Alto, and I think really on the Ventura, it really
needs to, we really just need to focus on the task that the Council has given us. It’s difficult enough just
to address the issues that the Council wants us to do, which is housing, and a connected street grid, and
historic preservation. And to go beyond the scope of that in Ventura to, like, the relationship with the
Research Park and Barron Park and stuff, just seems to me like you’re… You’re just going really too far out
there.
Chair Baltay: Okay, Alex, if you could be sure, as a courtesy to members of the Board, to bring forth to
everybody opinions like what David is doing, even if you feel that that’s not appropriate to discuss, which
is what you’ve just explained right now, as we go forward. David, it’s important that you’re listened to, and
Alex is thinking about what you have. It’s important that we as a Board respect Alex’s judgment of what…
He’s the one at the meeting. He knows what that meeting is trying to accomplish. We don’t want to tie his
hands or second-guess what’s going on. Alex, if you could just acknowledge these things to the Board
when we discuss them, so that David feels he’s being heard on this issue. And then, also, if other members
of the Board feel that what David is saying is something we should discuss more carefully, we can bring it
up at that time. Is that something we can all work with?
Board Member Hirsch: I can work with it. I’m wondering, does that…? Are you saying that Alex should
share my, what I sent to him, to…?
Chair Baltay: Yes. Basically, Alex is the one who will bring back comments…
Board Member Hirsch: That’s fine.
Chair Baltay: … from everybody at these presentations every meeting.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Chair Baltay: We should make whatever comments we have to Alex…
Board Member Hirsch: Which I did.
Chair Baltay: … which you did, and Alex will bring up as he sees fit, however it goes, what they are, and
what his reaction is, or how it’s relating to is work [crosstalk].
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, no, I think it would be a good idea if Alex could make his comments on top
of it and present it to the rest of you.
Chair Baltay: Yeah. I think we’re all in agreement on that. Great. With that, we have finished agenda
number 5. Number 6, we already did. Now, are we adjourned? Alex, yes? Okay, we are adjourned. Thank
you everybody, very much.
Adjournment
5.a
Packet Pg. 163
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10835)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 12/5/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 2342 Yale: Subcommittee Review of Materials and Details
Title: 2342 Yale Street [18PLN-00224]: Subcommittee Review of a
Previously Approved Architectural Review Application That
was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to
Materials, Trash Enclosure, Bike Locker and Related Lighting
and Circulation. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the
Provisions of CEQA in Accordance With Guideline Section
15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RMD (NP). For
More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at
emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Subcommittee take the following
action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions.
Background
On October 28, 2019 the Director of Planning and Development Services approved the subject
project. At the Board’s recommendation, the Director imposed a condition requiring an ARB
subcommittee to review certain project elements. The items and the applicant’s responses to
the ARB’s comments are below:
Architecture Review Condition 2a:
• Provide materials board and ensure colors are compatible with the neighborhood
Applicant’s Response:
The applicant provided a materials board including the colors, type of square channel wood
siding, and cedar for the trellises. The adjacent properties have monotone, pastel color
schemes. The commercial building directly across the street is bright yellow with painted green
7
Packet Pg. 165
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
brick. The white, gray, and black monotone color palette proposed is slightly more modern than
the surrounding buildings, but it would not stand out.
Architecture Review Condition 2b:
• Provide roof over the trash area, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works
Applicant’s Response:
Due to the size of the development, a full-scale trash enclosure is not required. Small covered
boxes to designate where the bins belong are now proposed where the uncovered bins were
shown on the approved plans. A specification sheet for these enclosures is provided. The
material and color complements the architectural design.
Architecture Review Condition 2c:
• Provide detail for the bike locker, ensure there is sufficient lighting and circulation
Applicant’s Response:
Primary access to the bike lockers is expected to be through the garage. Paving is now extended
around the area of the bike locker for a total pad area of approximately 126 square feet. An
exterior light is provided next to the side garage door.
Summary & Next Steps
A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online:
https://bit.ly/34FSmAw.
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
Emily Foley, AICP, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2575
emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Applicant Response Letter (PDF)
• Attachment B: Site Plan and Details for Subcommittee (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
7
Packet Pg. 166
Emily Foley November 11, 2019
City of Palo Alto
Associate Planner
RE: 2342 Yale St. - Minor Architectural Review Board Comments - 18PLN-00224
Hello Emily,
The following are revisions, to the proposed development, based on the comments we received
from the ARB at the October 17th, 2019 hearing:
1.We propose to add two trash enclosures that will accommodate three bins, (trash, recycle and
compost) for each unit. See Sheet A-1 “(N) Site Plan” and Trash Enclosure Description page.
The proposed enclosure is constructed of solid wood in a finish that will blend nicely with the
redwood fence at the property line and the decks and trellis of the proposed building.
2.To provide sufficient circulation around the bike locker, we propose to increase the depth of the
concrete pad surrounding the locker. The additional depth will provide close to three feet of
paving in front of the locker. This will allow a resident to easily walk their bike from the door that
leads to the garage, to the left side of the locker and place their bike into the locker. See Sheet
A-1 “(N) Site Plan” and the bike locker specifications sheet. In addition, to provide sufficient
lighting at the bike locker area, we propose to install an 180 degree LED motion security light.
See attached light fixture specification sheet.
3.The neutral color scheme we selected for the proposed building is both compatible with the
building’s architectural style and the neighboring homes.
3.1.The combination of medium gray stucco, white wood siding, window trim and facia, and a
black finish on the windows and doors fit the building’s “Modern Farmhouse” style.
3.2.The homes on this block do not have one particular color scheme. The neighborhood is a
mix of warm, cool and vibrant color schemes. The homes to the left and right of the
proposed building are painted in warm colors such as beige and pale green. As such, we
feel the neutral color scheme we propose will be compatible with the surrounding homes,
while still remaining distinctive.
Sincerely,
Amer Ismail
Design Build Group
1121 Hopkins Ave., Unit B, Redwood City, CA 94062
Tel: 650-368-5555
7.a
Packet Pg. 167
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 down 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
7.b
Packet Pg. 168
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10838)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 12/5/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 250 Sherman: Subcommittee Review of Public Safety Building
Tower Design
Title: 250 Sherman [17PLN-00256]: Subcommittee Review of a
Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return
With Project Changes Related to the Tower Design for the
Public Safety Building. Environmental Assessment: Certified
Environmental Impact Report. Zone District: Public Facilities
(PF). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy
French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction to staff or approve the revised tower design and the
attachments to the new Public Safety Building Communications Tower.
Background
On November 5, 2018, the City Council approved the Architectural Review application (file
17PLN-0056) for the new Public Safety Building. The ARB had recommended approval of the
project on September 20, 2018. An excerpt from the minutes of the ARB meeting was included
with the staff report to City Council, which is viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67439
The ARB had recommended an approval condition requiring ARB subcommittee review of
several project elements. The Council imposed this approval condition (condition number five)
requiring ARB subcommittee review of, among other items, the attachments design for the
communications tower. The video recording of the ARB’s last meeting on this project is
available online: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-09202018/. The
Council’s Record of Land Use Action is attached to this report (Attachment A).
8
Packet Pg. 169
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
The other items described in Approval Condition #5 included below, have been addressed.
Item c is the subject of this report for the ARB subcommittee’s consideration.
#5. The following items shall return to a subcommittee of the ARB for further
consideration/exploration:
a. the lighting detail fixture E-1,
b. the materials with respect to finishes, textures and color,
c. the communications tower antenna attachments design, and
d. the design of the community/multi-purpose room to make it flexible for use
by the Police Department and as a City-managed civic meeting room (including
the door to the plaza, additional windows, and signage).
The applicant provided a memo regarding the requested review (Attachment B) and drawings
(Attachment C, hard copies for the ARB subcommittee). The communications tower height will
be 135 feet above grade, as previously approved. The tower itself will be constructed of a
galvanized steel, tapered pole, approximately 80 feet in length, with a 27” diameter mounting
flange. The tower will be mounted onto the building’s exterior wall at 55 feet above grade.
Following deflection and constructability studies, the tower is now supported at the exterior of
the building, rather than previously shown supported from within the building’s interior. By
shifting the communications tower support to the exterior, the brick tower structure’s width
was reduced by approximately 50% from the design the ARB reviewed in September 2018. The
antennas shown on the communications tower may not all be required upon completion of the
building and some of these may be added in the future. Plans are viewable on-line on the City’s
Building Eye application under the 250 Sherman address, file 17PLN-00256.
The ARB subcommittee is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to
whether the proposed design will meet ARB findings or will require further refinement. The
applicant’s memo (Attachment B) clarifies the tower is smaller in diameter than others in
neighboring areas. The memo also notes alternative finish colors are available, for the ARB
subcommittee’s consideration.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• Attachment A: RLUA with Condition 5 and October 18 Subcommittee.doc (PDF)
• Attachment B: PaloAltoPSBCommunicationsTower Description Final 20191104 (PDF)
• Attachment C: 20191104_PAPSB_Tower Package_11x17r (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
8
Packet Pg. 170
1
ACTION NO. 2018-16
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 250 SHERMAN
AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17PLN-00256: PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
On November 5, 2018, the Council approved the proposed Public Safety Building at 250
Sherman Avenue making the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”)
finds, determines, and declares as follows:
On November 5, 2018, Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Architectural
Review application and conditional approval recommendation by the Architectural Review Board,
for the Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue;
A. On October 19, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted the first
public hearing of the Public Safety Building (PSB) application, together with the application for the
Sherman Avenue public parking garage, and continued its review of both applications to a date
uncertain;
B. On January 18, 2018 the ARB reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the PSB Project in a public hearing and provided comments, which were addressed in the Final
EIR Council adopted on June 11, 2018;
C. On June 11, 2018, Council adopted modifications to the Public Facilities
development and parking standards for public parking facilities and essential services facilities
within the Downtown and California Avenue business districts;
D. On August 2, 2018, the ARB reviewed the PSB application in a second public hearing
including a review of the Architectural Review approval findings and draft approval conditions, and
continued the hearing to September 20, 2018;
E. On September 20, 2018, the ARB unanimously recommended that Council approve
the proposed public parking garage, subject to subcommittee review as noted in approval
condition #5; and
F. On October 18, 2018 the ARB Subcommittee reviewed and provided feedback on
two of the items noted in Planning Condition of Approval #5.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On June 11, 2018, the City of Palo Alto City
Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and made related findings by Resolution 9772.
SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. The design and architecture of the proposed
project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 171
2
PAMC Chapter 18.76. The design and architecture of the proposed public safety building
complies with the Six Findings for Architectural Review set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 18.76 Section 18.76.020.
(1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant
design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:
With Council’s recent adoption of amendments to the Public Facilities development and
parking standards for essential services facilities and parking garages within the Downtown
and California Avenue Business districts approval of the project, the project complies with
the land use and development standards of the PF zone.
The following policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the
project:
o Policy T-5.6, strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and
explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all
types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping
where feasible,
o Policy T-5.7, require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and
bicycle safety,
o Policy T-5.8, promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce storm water runoff,
increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other
public locations. Encourage the use of photovoltaic panel or tree canopies in
parking lots or on top of parking structures to provide cover, consistent with the
Urban Forest Master Plan,
o Policy N-2.3, enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and
diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils
and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same and
discouraging the planting of invasive species,
o Policy N-2.10, preserve and protect Regulated Trees on public and private
property…and related program N2.10.1 continue to require replacement of trees
including street trees lost to new development,
o Policy N-4.12, encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the
amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the
retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID
measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where
practical.
o Policy L-1.10, hold new development to the highest development standards in
order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development
with the least impacts,
o Policy L-4.2, encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all
Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or
that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 172
3
o Policy L-4.3, ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide
centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage
economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees,
kiosks, restrooms and public art,
o Policy L-4.8, maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California
Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center intermediate in
function and scale between the Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business
areas,
o Policy L-5.2, provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections
to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts,
o Policy L-5.3, design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and
consistent with the character of the area where they are located,
o Policy L-6.1, promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces,
o Policy L-6.3, encourage bird-friendly design,
o Policy L-6.6, design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote
personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of
community safety,
o Policy L-6.10, encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy efficient, and
appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. (no
signage proposed with this application),
o Policy L-8.2, provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art,
o Policy L-70, enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining street
trees,
o Policy L-8.4, create facilities for civic and intellectual life, such as better urban
spaces for civic programs and speakers, cultural, musical and artistic events,
o Policy L-8.5, recognize public art … as a community benefit; encourage the
development of new public and private art and ensure such projects are compatible
with the character and identity of the neighborhood,
o Policy L-8.6, seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces,
open space and community gardens,
o Policy L-9.2, encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the
project, including locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or
by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to
surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still
maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking
to meet demand,
o Policy L-9.6, create…publicly accessible, shared outdoor gathering spaces within
walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods,
o Policy L-9.7 strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways,
including…entries to commercial districts,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 173
4
o Policy L-9.8 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan into the
Comprehensive Plan by reference in order to assure that new land uses recognize
the many benefits of trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust
tree canopy throughout the city,
Related Program L-9.8.1, establish incentives to encourage native trees and
low water use plantings in new development throughout the city,
o Policy L-9.9, involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development
review,
o Policy L-9.11, design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures,
parking garages and parking lots, to meet high-quality urban design standards and
embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in
design of public infrastructure.
Related Program L9.11.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed
utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow
preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in
locations that will minimize their visual intrusion.
(2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
(2a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and
the general community; The project is consistent with Finding 2(a), given:
The right-of-way improvements will improve circulation; employee automobile ingress
from/egress onto Jacaranda Lane is compatible with the design concept and functions;
The new facilities and amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles are an
improvement from the existing facilities as to safety and convenience;
(2b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the
site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant; The project is
consistent with Finding 2(b), given:
Although all existing on-site and street trees will be removed to allow for construction of
the PSB, 15 new street trees (Chinese Elms, California Sycamores, and London Planes) in
24” box sizes (with post pavement support system and necessary soil volume for long-term
health and separation for utilities) are proposed around the perimeter of the building on
Sherman, Birch and Park (plan sheet ARB AM08).
On Birch Street, five additional 24” box sized Golden Rain trees will form an allee with the
street trees; and one additional tree (Cork Oak) is proposed for the ‘front yard’ area;
On Park Boulevard, four additional 24” box sized Strawberry trees are proposed behind the
street trees;
Six Strawberry trees are proposed in the employee courtyard near Jacaranda Lane;
Plan sheet ARB AM11 provides technical details associated with the tree mitigation plan.
(2c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district; Finding
2c is not applicable since the PF zone does not impose context based design criteria.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 174
5
(2d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and
land use designations; The project is consistent with Finding 2(d), given:
The materials and architectural forms are intended to be compatible with the mid-century
architecture of the area which includes:
o A four story building across Sherman (the County courthouse and jail building), a
mixed use (office-residential) building on the corner across Sherman, one- and two-
story commercial buildings fronting California Avenue, and multi-story residential
building on the opposite corner.
(2e) enhances living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas;
There are no living units proposed on the site; the project is consistent with Finding 2(e),
wherever feasible, with limited lighting proposed facing the multiple family residential
building on Sherman Avenue, and with pedestrian friendly landscaping, lighting and
sidewalks to enhance residents’ experience walking to California Avenue.
(3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that
are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area; the project is consistent with Finding 3,
given:
The materials were selected for quality, durability and to convey warmth;
The new structure’s materials and construction techniques are appropriate for the use;
Colors and textures will be compatible with nearby civic buildings and park landscaping;
(4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and
providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient
vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space
and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.); the project is consistent with Finding 4, given:
The 10’ high security wall along Jacaranda is set back from the property line to provide
a continuous sidewalk and meet the 10’ PF zone setback requirement for a significant
length of the alley;
Sidewalk curb location adjustments and pedestrian crossing bulb-outs promote safe
pedestrian traffic;
(5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings,
is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous
drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be
appropriately maintained; the project is consistent with Finding 5, given:
Selected tree species will thrive in an urban environment, provide appropriate
architectural emphasis and scale on each of the three frontages, and have relatively low
maintenance and water requirements.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 175
6
Sherman and Park frontages receive raised planters with integral seating, an area of
rain garden planting.
Sherman Avenue and Birch Street receive wider sidewalks allowing for street trees and
benches.
The entry alignment of the Birch Street ramp connects with Jacaranda to allow a
landscaped front yard plaza on Birch,
The landscaped setbacks accommodate seating and shade for individual passive
activities along Birch, Sherman and Park frontages;
Low-level, focused pedestrian lighting will reinforce the intimate and small-scale
aspects of the plazas/streets, avoid light-pollution, and reinforce the civic character of
the facilities.
(6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to
energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning; the
project is consistent with Finding #6 given:
Suitable street tree planting environments and storm water design features are key
features of the project.
SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval
is hereby granted for the Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue by the City Council
pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 5. Plan Approval.
Public Safety Building
The plans for the Public Safety Building submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by RussDrulisCusenbery, consisting of 47
pages, updating the September 4, 2018 plans reviewed by the ARB on September 20, 2018, except
as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of these plans is on file
in the Department of Planning and Community Development.
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Impact Mitigation Measures Required for Both Project Components (250 and 350 Sherman)
Air Quality Mitigation 5-1. To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated
with PM2.5 emissions, including emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated
during project construction activities, the City and/or it’s designated contractors,
contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
1. Implement BAAQMD-recommended “Additional Construction Measures”. The City shall implement the following
BAAQMD recommended additional construction mitigation measures during construction activities: (1) All exposed
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 176
7
surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent, to be verified by
lab samples or moisture probe, (2) All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when
average winds speeds exceed 20 miles per hour, (3) Temporary wind breaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the
windward (generally the north / northwest) of actively disturbed areas of construction. The wind breaks should have at
maximum 50 percent air porosity, (4) Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast germinating native grass seed) shall be planted
in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established, (5) Simultaneous
occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities in the same area at any one time shall
be limited and/or phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time, (6) All trucks and equipment,
including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site, (7) Site access to a distance of 100 feet from the paved
road, or as much as feasible, shall be treated with a compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, gravel, or other cover as
feasible to reduce track-out, (8) Minimize the idling time for diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes
provided such idling restrictions are consistent with manufacturer’s equipment specifications.
2. Apply construction equipment restrictions. The City shall apply the following construction equipment restrictions to
the proposed project: (1) Electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas equipment shall be employed
instead of diesel powered equipment to the maximum extent feasible. (2) All construction equipment with a rated
power-output of 25 horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Final Emission Standards for
particulate matter. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV
emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB verified diesel emission
control strategy (e.g., oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM emissions to levels that
meet Tier IV standards.
3. Prepare Construction Risk Reduction Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City and/or its contractor
shall prepare a Construction Risk Reduction Plan for the project which: (1) Identifies the final planned construction
phasing schedule and anticipated equipment operations. (2) Estimates the proposed project’s construction emissions
based on the final phasing and equipment plan. Any emission update shall be performed using the latest recommended
emissions estimator model recommended by the BAAQMD or other standard, acceptable methodology (e.g.,
contractor-specific fleet emission factors and estimates of equipment operating hours). (3) Models the potential diesel
particulate matter and total PM2.5 concentrations resulting from refined emissions estimates. Any modeling shall be
performed using an accepted screening or refined dispersion model recommended for use by the BAAQMD. The
modeling shall focus on discrete, residential receptors located at and near the proposed project site. (4) Estimates
potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to DPM. Risk estimates shall follow the latest
recommendations of the BAAQMD. The goal of the risk estimation shall be to identify the receptor(s) or areas of
receptors where carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk thresholds may be exceeded. If risks are exceeded, the plan
shall identify feasible on- and off-site measures to reduce risks to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. On-site measures
may include the BAAQMD “Additional Construction Measures” and construction equipment restrictions included in
Mitigation Measure 5-1, as well as phasing / activity restrictions. Off-site measures may include coordinating with all
impacted receptors to replace and upgrade existing HVAC systems to provide high performance panel filters capable of
reducing potential modeled outdoor PM2.5 concentrations / risks to levels that are below BAAQMD thresholds.
4. Implement Off-Site Mitigation. In-lieu of preparing the Construction Risk Reduction Plan identified above, the City
may, prior to the start of construction activities, coordinate directly with impacted residential receptors to replace and
upgrade existing residential HVAC systems with a high-performance panel filter with a rated minimum efficiency
reporting value (MERV) for particles in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 µm of 70% (presumed to be a minimum MERV14), or
equivalent system upgrade. This level of control would reduce risks to levels below current BAAQMD thresholds. Based
on the results of the modeling conducted for the EIR, the City shall coordinate with residential receptors located in the
area bound by Park Boulevard to the north, Ash Street to the south Sheridan Avenue to the east, and Sherman Avenue
to the west.
Nesting Birds Mitigation 6-1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds and violation of State and
federal laws pertaining to birds, all construction-related activities (including but not limited
to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 177
8
demolition, and grading) should occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to
February 1 or after August 31).
If construction and construction noise occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to August 31), all
suitable habitats located within the project’s area of disturbance, including staging and storage areas plus a 150-foot
buffer around these areas, shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the presence of active nests by a qualified
biologist no more than five days before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization.
If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active
nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the
nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented. If it is determined that birds are actively nesting within the survey
area, the additional procedures below shall apply. Conversely, if the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds,
the additional procedures shall not be required.
Additional Procedures. If pre-construction nesting bird surveys result in the location of active nests, no site disturbance
and mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing,
grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) shall take place within 150 feet of nests, or as
determined by a qualified biologist, until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring shall be required to insure compliance
with the MBTA and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be
documented.
Removal of Trees Mitigation 6-2. Prior to removal of the protected trees and street trees,
the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit issued by the City of Palo Alto Urban
Forestry Division for the removal of any and all protected, designated, or street trees
(referred to collectively as “Regulated Trees”). In all cases, replacement trees would be
required as a condition of the tree removal permit, and the project applicant must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that there is no alternative that could preserve
the tree(s) on-site.
The project applicant must provide an evaluation and summary for any Regulated Tree (the collective term for any
protected, designated, or street tree) proposed to be removed. The applicant shall be required, in accordance with the
Tree Protection and Management Regulations (PAMC 8.10) and Tree Technical Manual (PAMC 8.10.130), to replace the
tree canopy for the six (6) protected trees, in accordance with the tree canopy formula identified in the Tree Technical
Manual (TTM, 3.20). If the tree canopy cannot be replaced on-site, the canopy shall be replaced off-site as close to the
project site as feasible. If trees are being replaced off-site, the applicant must submit a Tree Planting Plan to the Urban
Forestry Division and obtain the Urban Forestry Division’s approval of the plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Tree Planting Plan must include:
(a) The canopy calculation for trees removed and the number of trees planned to replace them, consistent with the
formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual.
(b) The specific location where the new trees would be planted with specific baseline information about that proposed
site (e.g., surrounding vegetation or development).
(c) The species of trees to be planted.
(d) Specific planting details (e.g., size of sapling, size of containers, irrigation plan).
(e) Success criteria,
(f) Monitoring and maintenance schedule
(g) Replacement tree planting will be monitored by a qualified arborist.
To verify the success of replacement trees, monitoring shall occur for two years after initial planting. After the two year
period, the arborist will determine if the trees are capable of surviving without further maintenance.
Archeo-Paleo Mitigation 7-1. In the event of the unanticipated discovery of subsurface
archaeological or paleontological resources during earth-moving operations, the following
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 178
9
measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts on these resources to
a less-than- significant level:
1. Conduct Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The City shall retain a
qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and
Standards, and a professionally qualified paleontologist, to conduct an Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity
Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session will include a
written handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological and paleontological resources that may be
encountered during earth-moving activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of
archaeological and paleontological monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist or
paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.
2. Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In
the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the ground-disturbing
activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of
at least 50 feet shall be established around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until a
qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall
be allowed to continue outside the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction
activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric,
Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring
should be initiated. The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of
the resources, along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
3. Conduct Periodic Archaeological Resources Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities in All Sediments.
The City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards, to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to
determine if construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified
archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed, or have a high
probability of exposing, archaeological artifacts, construction monitoring for archaeological resources will be required.
The City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a
professional archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g.,
grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may
require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and
grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial
fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-
time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist.
If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt in the vicinity of the resources and a
qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected
and processed by the qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and
collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed
from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall
be provided to a museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the
itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage.
A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall
be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the lead agency, shall signify the completion of the program
to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 179
10
Tribal Mitigation 7-2. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin
are identified during construction, all earth-disturbing work within the vicinity of the find
must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the
nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative,
based on the nature of the find, is consulted.
If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan
shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American
groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would
outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archaeologist and the appropriate Native
American tribal representative.
Geotech Mitigation 8-1. As recommended by the project's preliminary geotechnical
investigation, prior to City issuance of grading permits for individual project construction
components, the City shall be required to retain a registered engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer to prepare detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations to
guide the construction of all project grading and excavation activities.
The detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations shall be performed for each of the structures proposed for
the development site. Subsurface conditions shall be explored and laboratory tests conducted on selected soil samples
to establish parameters for the design of excavations, foundations, shoring, and waterproofing. Recommendations
from the investigations shall be incorporated into all plans for project grading, excavation, soil support (both temporary
and long-term), and utility construction, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The detailed, construction-level
investigations, relevant recommendations, and all associated project grading, excavation and foundation plans, shall be
subject to review and approval by an independent engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer retained by the City
Engineer. In addition, the project civil engineer shall certify to the City Engineer (e.g., through plan submittal for City
review) that all relevant provisions of the investigations have been incorporated into the grading, excavation and
construction plans, and all earthwork and site preparation shall be performed under the direct supervision of a
registered engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.
Contamination Mitigation 10-1. Recommendations included in the Phase II ESA
(Stantec, June 8, 2017) shall be implemented, based on construction level project plans
when more specific and precise design and construction activities are formulated. The
Phase II ESA recommends additional assessment of local and regional groundwater
conditions in advance of dewatering activities, combined with, as necessary, evaluation of
pertinent and cost effective water management strategies, including preparation of Site
Management Plans. Likewise, the project must comply with the City’s standard dewatering
requirements. This assessment and mitigation process shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
Noise Mitigation 13-1. To reduce potential noise levels associated construction of the
proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives,
or other appropriate personnel shall:
Restrict work hours/equipment noise. All work shall be subject to the construction noise and time limits contained in
City Municipal Code Chapter 9.10. Construction activities (including deliveries) shall only occur during the following
time periods: – 8 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday; and – 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday. Construction activities shall be
prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction
site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of these requirements in accordance with Section
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 180
11
9.10.060(c). The sign shall also provide a name (or title) and phone number for an appropriate on-site and City
representative to contact to submit a noise complaint.
Construction equipment care, siting, and design measures. The following construction equipment care, siting, and
design measures shall apply during construction activities: – Heavy equipment engines shall be covered and exhaust
pipes shall include a muffler in good working condition. Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the
compressed air exhaust. – All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding
machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. At a minimum, such
shielding shall consist of a three-sided sound enclosure (with a full or partial roof) that provides for proper ventilation,
equipment operation, and effective noise control. The enclosure should be designed to achieve a 10 to 15 dB reduction
in stationary equipment noise levels. The design of the enclosure shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant
prior to installation to ensure the enclosure will achieve a minimum 10 dB reduction in stationary equipment noise
levels. – The City shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary, diesel- or other
alternatively-fueled power generators. – No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the
property line of the construction site.
Construction traffic. Construction truck traffic, including soil hauling, equipment deliveries, potential concrete
deliveries, and other vendor deliveries shall follow designated delivery routes prepared for the project, which are
anticipated to include travel on Oregon Expressway and Birch Road.
Construct/Install Temporary Noise Barrier: The City shall install and maintain throughout the duration of all site
preparation, excavation, foundation construction, and building construction activities, one or more physical noise
barriers capable of achieving a minimum reduction in predicted construction noise levels of 15.5 dB. Potential barrier
options would include: – A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-
grade, such as KRail) along the project property line. Such a wall/barrier shall consist of material that have a minimum
rated transmission loss value of 25.5 dB (or equivalent rating), and shall contain no gaps in the structure through which
noise may pass. – Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets installed
along the project property line, building envelope or, if feasible and necessary, at or near sensitive residential receptor
areas. – Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving a 15.5 dB reduction in
construction noise levels at sensitive receptor locations. – Prior to the start of the project, the City may prepare an
acoustical analysis that reflects the final site plan, construction activities, equipment use and duration, and refines
potential construction noise reductions required for the project. The final type, placement, and design of the project’s
temporary noise barrier(s) shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure proper
function and a minimum attenuation of 15.5 dBs in construction noise levels.
Prepare Project Construction Noise Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall
prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact
information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing
construction-noise related issues. Contains a detailed construction schedule and predicted noise levels associated with
construction activities. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and
resolve to construction noise complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the Contractor and/or City
representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the noise source generating the complaint,
determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint.
Prepare Construction Noise Monitoring Plan. Prior to the start of construction, the City or its contractor shall prepare a
Construction Noise Monitoring Plan which identifies: – Construction activities, hours of operation, and predicted
construction noise levels; and – Construction noise monitoring locations, duration, and frequency. The intent of the
Construction Noise Monitoring Plan is to document updated ambient noise levels, monitor construction noise levels,
and verify compliance with the noise reduction requirements in mitigation measure 13-1. If monitoring indicates
temporary noise barriers are not achieving a minimum 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels or otherwise
indicates construction noise is resulting a 10 dB increase in noise levels above ambient conditions, the City shall
increase the height, size (length or width), density, and/or amount of noise barriers installed such that attenuation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 181
12
requirements are achieved. The Construction Noise Monitoring Plan may be combined with and/or incorporated into
the Construction Noise Complaint Plan described above.
Vibrations Mitigation 13-2. To reduce potential groundborne vibration levels
associated with construction of the proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated
contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The City shall prohibit the use of large vibratory rollers (small plate compactors are
acceptable) and vibratory pile driving equipment during construction. Any deep foundation piers or caissons shall be
auger drilled.
Provide Notice to Adjacent Property Owners / Occupants. Five (5) days advanced written notice shall be provided to
adjacent property owners and building occupants before commencing all drilling and significant earthmoving activities
within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. The notice shall provide the name (or title) and contact information (including
phone number and email) of the Contractor and City representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-
related concerns.
Prepare Vibration Mitigation Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a
Construction Vibration Response Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact information
(including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction
vibration-related issues. – Contains a detailed schedule of drilling and substantial earth moving activities expected to
occur within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will
receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration
complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the vibration
source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by
reducing groundborne vibration levels to less than 75 VdB and 0.04 in/sec PPV. Such measures may include the use of
nonimpact drivers, use of rubber-tired equipment instead of track equipment, or other measures that limit annoyance
from groundborne vibration levels.
Operational Noise Mitigation 13-3. To reduce potential stationary source noise levels associated
with the operation of the proposed project, the City and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s
representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall:
Site equipment away from residential areas. Garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps,
and heating and air conditioning equipment shall be located outside of setbacks and screened from view from
residential areas.
Enclose and/or Shield Stationary Noise Generating Equipment. The City shall enclose, shield, baffle, or otherwise
attenuate noise generated from garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating
and air conditioning equipment. The attenuation achieved through such enclosure, shielding, and/or baffling shall be
sufficient to comply with Section 9.10.050(a) of the Municipal Code, which is estimated to be 78.2 dBA.
Prepare Acoustical Study. In accordance with Chapters 9.10 and 18.23 of the Municipal Code, the City shall have an
acoustical analysis prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer that demonstrates: – The proposed parking garage’s
generator would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted). – The
proposed parking garages ventilation fans would not result in a calculated Ldn of 63.0 at sensitive residential receptor
locations. – The proposed public safety building fire pump, back-up generator, and heating and air conditioning
equipment would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted) and
would not result in a calculated increase of more than 3.0 dB Ldn at sensitive receptor locations. The acoustical analysis
shall be based on the final project design, reflect the actual equipment type and location at the project site, and the
actual noise enclosure, shielding, or other attenuation measures included in the final project design. If the acoustical
study demonstrates the noise levels from these sources would be at or within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits,
the City shall demonstrate through monitoring that the equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels.
SECTION 7: Approval Conditions for Public Safety Building
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 182
13
Planning Conditions:
1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents received
September 5, 2018, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
2. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this
project.
3. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review.
4. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a
building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the AR
approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be
made prior to the two year expiration.
5. The following items shall return to a subcommittee of the ARB for further consideration/exploration:
a. the lighting detail fixture E-1,
b. the materials with respect to finishes, textures and color,
c. the communications tower antenna attachments design, and
d. the design of the community/multi-purpose room to make it flexible for use by the Police Department and as
a City-managed civic meeting room (including the door to the plaza, additional windows, and signage).
Transportation Conditions
A. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to Planning entitlement approval:
1. Planset Scale: The scale of the architectural sheets within the PDF copy of the latest planset does not
match the scale bar shown on the sheets. Please correct.
2. BICYCLE PARKING: On revised plans, please identify the quantity, location, and design of proposed long
and short term bicycle parking facilities. Short-term bicycle parking consists of bicycle racks and several
options are available to provide secure, long-term bicycle parking including lockers and secure parking
rooms. Detailed design standards may be found in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.54.060.
The following minimum bicycle parking supply standards apply for this project, but additional spaces may
be desired to achieve trip reduction targets required as part of the Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program, encourage healthy commute alternatives, and serve the public.
Public Safety Building Bicycle Parking Requirement
Spaces Class: Long Term (LT); Short Term (ST)
1 per 2,500 sf gross floor area 60% LT 40% ST
3. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Revise civil and architectural site plans to address the following:
a. Show the shortening/modification of the Birch Avenue median on Civil plans to the extent
necessary to remove vertical barriers within the marked crosswalk.
b. Increase the curb corner radius of the Birch Street/Sheridan Avenue to at least 15-feet. Retain
the directional curb ramps, if possible. The geometry should allow for an SU-30 design vehicle
turning from WB Sherman Avenue to NB Birch at “crawl” speed. The vehicle may partially
straddle the centerline of Sherman to complete the turn.
c. Design the reverse curves for the bulb outs per the attached drawing.
d. The Civil site plan appears to have some drafting errors where proposed curblines do not overlap
with existing curb locations, implying a change in roadway geometry. This is particularly of
concern on the Park Boulevard frontage, where the new curb appears to be offset 3-4 feet from
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 183
14
the existing curb. Please correct errors. The curb location on Park Boulevard should not be
changed from existing conditions.
e. Consider removing the bulb-out within Jacaranda Lane which channelizes EB traffic into the
garage and substitute with a device that achieves the intended traffic control but permits
greater flexibility for potential future circulation changes.
f. At the one-way outbound service yard driveway to Sherman Avenue, adjust the curb line to
maximize the width of level sidewalk area outside the sloped driveway apron. Example:
4. PARKING FACILITY DESIGN: Please revise the project plans to address the following parking facility design
standards. Please refer to chapter 18.54 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) for a complete list of
parking design requirements.
a. Show typical parking lot aisle, driveway, and stall widths. Verify plans are drawn to the scale
indicated on the sheet.
b. Driveway Widths: Verify the proposed parking garage ramps meet minimum horizontal width
requirements shown in PAMC 18.54. Exclusive of parking lot aisles adjacent to parking stalls, two-
way garage ramps shall be at least 18-feet wide; two-way driveways 20-feet; and one-way
driveways 12-feet. It appears the Sherman Avenue garage ramp may be less than 18-feet at the
garage entry portal/door frame.
c. Garage ramp grades and vertical clearances: Demonstrate the proposed garage ramps meet
design standards for slopes and transition areas shown in PAMC 18.54.070 Figure 5. Label: grade
break locations, and ramp slopes.
d. Clear sight triangles. A 4-foot by 6-foot clear sight triangle is required at all site driveway exits to
public streets per PAMC 18.54.070 Figure 6. The area of the triangle shall not contain any vertical
obstruction greater than three feet, nor landscaping greater than two feet, above driveway
grade. The driveways approaching Sherman Avenue do not appear to meet this requirement.
B. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a
Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment
Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the
Planning entitlement approval:
1. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT: The applicant shall prepare a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior
to the issuance of building permits. The TDM plan shall include measures and strategies to achieve evening peak
hour a trip reduction of target of 35%. The TDM plan shall include a monitoring plan to assess compliance with
the required target. Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance targets are not met, the director
may require program modifications and may impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not
addressed within six months.
Building Conditions
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a
Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 184
15
Permit, etc.:
site-specific soils report will be required to be submitted for the building construction permit.
For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements are
required per PAMC16.14.430, Section A5.106.5.3.3. The following standards apply:
o For the employee parking on Basement Level 2, the property owner shall provide Conduit Only,
EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5%
and no fewer than one, shall be EVSE Installed. Please indicate on the plans the location of the
EVSE-Ready and EVSE Installed spaces.
o Accessible spaces. Projects shall comply with the 2016 California Building Code requirements for
accessible electric vehicle parking. Show the location of the required EVSE accessible spaces.
(CBC 11B-228.3, 11B-812)
o Minimum total circuit capacity. The property owner shall ensure sufficient circuit capacity, as
determined by the Chief Building Official, to support a Level 2 EVSE in every location where
Circuit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed is required.
o Location. The EVSE, receptacles, and/or raceway required by this section shall be placed in
locations allowing convenient installation of and access to EVSE. Location of EVSE or receptacles
shall be consistent with all City guidelines, rules, and regulations.
For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements are
required per PAMC 16.14.080. The Green Building Checklist “GB-1 Non-Residential Mandatory Plus Tier 2”
sheet is required for the building permit. The GB-1 Mandatory + Tier 2 sheet can be downloaded from the
City’s website address: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp
Public Works Engineering Approval Conditions
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building
Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.
1. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision
C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations
apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface,
and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or
replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts
of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site
design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to
the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate
permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such
as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term
maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to
discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract
with a qualified third-party reviewer during the Building permit review process to certify that the proposed
permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal
Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a
description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer
prior to grading or building permit issuance by the Public Works department and MUST be submitted before
06/30/2019.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 185
16
2. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of
an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for
approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the
approved permit drawings.
3. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto
adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from
the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works.
4. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting
the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the
basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all
exterior basement-level spaces, such as light-wells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a
sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10
feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the
soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito
habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any
adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works
recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and
waterproofing systems for the basement.
5. DEWATERING: Proposed basement/underground garage excavation may require dewatering during
construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater
dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate
capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated
groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all
required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public
Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our
website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp
6. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will
be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and
preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses
both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is
required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and
approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's standard "Pollution Prevention - It's
Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the
Development Center.
7. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious
surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface
areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and
instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website.
8. PAVEMENT: Sherman, Birch, and Park were recently resurfaced -- these streets are under a moratorium. Any
cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site
Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Sherman, Birch and/or Park
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 186
17
based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum
pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and
label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan.
9. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are
maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the
monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and
label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district.
10. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control
measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to
guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The
maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to grading and building permit issuance. The City will
inspect the treatment measures yearly.
Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Conditions
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building
Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.:
1. The plans are to be updated per the WGW review comments issued 10/18/2017.
2. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet
per unit for each unit on the property for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the
information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and
sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads
3. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and
location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way.
4. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and
location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters,
backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any
other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles
showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication
duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to
verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains
and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to
handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and
construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services.
6. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements
7. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all
existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California
administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 187
18
owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for
domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
8. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire
system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through
7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent
to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector
assembly on the plans.
9. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or
added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other
facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
10. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel
shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans.
11. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per
WGW utilities procedures.
12. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over
existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the
vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing
utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field
conditions.
13. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters;
lesser distances require a permanent impermeable root-barrier a minimum of 3ft horizontal from water,
gas and wastewater services/mains/meters .
14. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water,
gas & wastewater.
Utilities Electrical Conditions
1. Main electric panel shall be at grade and outdoor. The proposed design shall have the location of the main
electric panel.
2. The proposed building is two stories deep which might require long tie-back to reinforce the shoring walls.
Applicant shall work with Electric Utility prior to driving these tie-backs onto Jacaranda and part of Sherman
and Birch to avoid hitting the high voltage electric conduits. Applicant shall pot hole where close to these
conduits and electric equipment.
4. No tree drip-line near electric equipment (including conduits).
6. The point of electric power connection to feed the new building at 350 Sherman is one of the following: MH
1610 (manhole 1610), Vault 1609, LB3470 or SW 3469
8. The point of connection for fiber is a communication box near transformer 5264.
Public Works Water Quality (Storm water Management) Conditions
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 188
19
1. Submit and follow the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” construction BMP sheet during life of project with
the building permit set.
2. Use rain capture device at the demonstration garden and include description in interpretative signage.
3. Highly consider using rain chains or similar along vines and other walls/building corners.
4. Storm drain/drop inlets
Inlets should be labeled with a ‘Flows to Adobe Creek’ message.
5. Stormwater treatment measures
Consider using low-maintenance permeable pavers in the plaza to be part of the demonstration area.
Appropriate specs must be followed.
Installation vendor specs should be followed, though vendor specs should be reviewed by Parks Maintenance
Staff before installation. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City staff in pertinent
Departments (Public Works, Parks) before occupancy approval. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater
Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 to facilitate this agreement.
Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements.
Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here:
http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details
Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of
stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-
2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan.
Install an interpretive sign regarding stormwater treatment and pollution prevention. Contact Pam Boyle
Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this text.
6. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org)
Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials
Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines:
http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-
landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. Add this
bullet as a note to the building plans.
7. Stormwater quality protection
Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the
containers.
Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed).
Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping.
Establish a street sweeping maintenance plan in open parking lots. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater
Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this plan.
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building
Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.:
1. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites
to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that
either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds
state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water
may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code
(16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall
be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee
Schedule.
2. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 189
20
Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. And
PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary
sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms
and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional
information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k)
3. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper
granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building
for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are
exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt,
provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the
definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current
edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
4. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
(i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device
that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation.
(ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock
area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if
equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods
of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on
by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all
rainwater contacting the loading dock site.
5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
6. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming
in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where
alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater
plumbing.
7. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains
Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials,
hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment
cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and
equipment
8. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
SECTION 8. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall
be valid for two years from the original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.77.090.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 190
21
PASSED: 9-0
AYES: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery entitled ‘ARB Submittal City of Palo Alto Public
Safety Building 250 Sherman Ave’ received September 5, 2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 8.a
Packet Pg. 191
NOVEMBER 4, 2019
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Palo Alto
New Public Safety Building Communications Tower
Prepared for
City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Prepared by
Winbourne Consulting, LLC
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc.
8.b
Packet Pg. 192
Palo Alto Public Safety Building Communications Tower Description
1 | P a g e
Palo Alto Public Safety Building, Palo Alto, CA
Communications Tower Description
OVERVIEW
The City of Palo Alto is constructing a new Public Safety Building (PSB) located on the current City-
owned parking lot C-6 at 250 Sherman Avenue, in the California Avenue business district of Palo
Alto. The new approximately 48,917 SF, multi-story facility constructed over two levels of secure
basement parking, will house the City of Palo Alto Police Department, Fire Administration, Office of
Emergency Services, 911 Dispatch Center and the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The
facility will be designed as an essential facility capable to operate on a standalone, 24/7 basis in the
event of a major earthquake or disaster. The Construction Document phase will be completed and
issued for Building Permit in December of 2019. Start of construction is scheduled for Fall of 2020.
The project is currently scheduled for completion before the end of 2022. RossDrulisCusenbery
Architecture, Inc. (RDC) is the project architect. Winbourne Consulting LLC, a specialist in the design
of emergency communications systems was engaged by RDC to provide emergency radio system
engineering services for the project. Winbourne Consulting LLC with RDC prepared the following
communications tower description.
The new facility will include a 135’ communications tower when measured from the ground plane
to top of tower. The following provides a general description of the communications tower and its
functionality.
FACILITY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
The new PSB will incorporate a variety of sophisticated emergency communication and data
systems. The communications requirements of the facility will be supported by a variety of
antennas mounted on an 80’ unguided, monopole type tower attached to a surface mounted steel
armature on the building’s exterior wall (See Figures 1 & 2 and attached ARB Submittal Drawings).
The antennas provide mission-critical voice and data communications to the city’s first responders
and emergency management personnel as well as meeting the city’s need to integrate with other
public safety agencies in the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) area.
The SVRIA microwave network is the primary backhaul for radio communications and provides
connectivity to the city’s computer aided dispatch system (CAD) that is shared with Mountain View
and Los Altos. The tower equipment also supports the 9-1-1 system and redundant radio
communications.
The following description represents the currently estimated antenna loading scenario; it is possible
that some of these antennas will not be required when the building is completed. It is also possible
that additional antennas or equipment could be added in the future. The tower manufacturer
8.b
Packet Pg. 193
Palo Alto Public Safety Building Communications Tower Description
2 | P a g e
associated with the winning bidder may also propose minor deviations from the initial design based
on their preferences, for example, proposing a round design vs. a polygonal one. The current
conceptual design diagrams depict a round tower section.
TOWER HEIGHT & LOCATION
The communications tower’s base is attached to a building mounted steel armature exterior to the
building at 55’ above ground, which results in the top of the monopole tower being at 135’ (Figure
3) above the ground plane. This height is required to ensure the signal path of the microwave
antennas are not attenuated to foliage, buildings, or other obstructions, and was determined by an
engineering analysis.
Originally the building’s monopole mounting armature was planned to be internal to the brick
vertical tower chase on the building. Following additional study, it became apparent the amount of
deflection estimated to be experienced from wind or seismic movements at the tower roof plane
would be excessive and require a custom seismic expansion joint which would be problematic to
design, waterproof and warranty. Consequently, the monopole mounting structure was shifted
from the interior of the vertical brick tower to the exterior of the building similar to early images of
the tower design presented to the City of Palo Alto. In so doing, the elevation of the brick tower
structure facing Park Blvd was reduced in width by approximately 50% from that depicted in the
prior ARB submittals. The overall brick tower height remains unchanged. The exterior surface
mounted location avoids the expansion and deflection issues at the roof/monopole interface.
MATERIAL & FINISH
The tower design is based on either a round section or an 18-sided polygonal, slightly tapered pole
constructed of galvanized, grade A585-55 steel. The diameter of the round tower at the mounting
flange is approximately 27”. The diameter of the mounting flange will be approximately 4’ allowing
for bolted connections between the monopole base the building armature. According to the City,
similar communication towers in Los Altos and Mountain View have larger diameter towers.
Another rooftop communication tower array exists on the neighboring County courthouse.
Rungs will be installed on the side to provide access for maintenance. The 80’ tower above the roof
line will have a galvanized metal finish to provide the best lifespan and minimize maintenance
requirements. Below the roof line connection flange, the supporting pole and its attachments to
the building will match the galvanized tower finish. Alternately the entire tower assembly could be
painted to match the dark steel trim color of the Sherman Street canopy steel if a long-term durable
finish was specified. The color of the communications tower will be discussed with the ARB. Dishes
and antennae at the top of the tower will have typical manufacturer finishes that range from bare
aluminum to protective coatings with colors that range from gray to white.
8.b
Packet Pg. 194
Palo Alto Public Safety Building Communications Tower Description
3 | P a g e
LIGHTNING PROTECTION
The tower includes a lighting protection system. A ¾” diameter, approximately 5’ lightning rod
extends beyond the top of the tower and is attached to the side of the tower.
MICROWAVE ANTENNAS
Below the lightning rod and the top of tower are two microwave dish antennas. These antennas
provide line-of-sight, point-to-point, communications supporting CAD among the Emergency
Communication Centers in the area as well as radio backhaul for the regional radio system. The
microwave network is also a critical backup communications path to fiber optic links that are used
for the 9-1-1 system.
Each of the dish antennas are approximately 3’ in diameter. These appear at different heights on
the tower diagram and are pointed in different directions to make the point-to-point connections
to other facilities and to maintain the integrity of the regional microwave ring. The tower diagram
indicates a third future micro wave dish antenna that may be added in the future. The exact
requirements or need for this future dish is not known at this time. The microwave antennas
included on the monopole tower are:
➢ PAPSB to Mountain View 9-1-1 Center, 134’ above ground, azimuth = 123 degrees
➢ PAPSB to the Palo Alto Civic Center, 126’ above ground, azimuth = 321 degrees
➢ Future Microwave dish antenna, height and azimuth T.B.D.
The dish antennas will be spaced apart to allow a future third dish (should it be required) to target
a new station in the foothills that is still in the planning stages.
WHIP ANTENNAS
Below the microwave dishes, mounted on a tower crossarm are two whip antennas. These provide
voice communications to first responders on both UHF and VHR radio systems. Each antenna is
approximately 20’ in height with a 2-3/4 “diameter. The top of these whip antennas must be lower
than the top of the lighting rod. Approximately 10 - 12 other additional whip antennas will be roof
mounted in the center of the PSB roof. It is unlikely these additional roof mounted whip antennas
will be visible from the street.
PANEL ANTENNAS
Just below the top two microwave dishes are approximately six small panel antennas, arrayed to
provide 360 degrees of coverage. These antennas provide communications to the City’s mobile
emergency operations center (MEOC) vehicle. This ensures that the MEOC has access to the
necessary data communications when it is deployed in response to disasters or other major
emergencies. Each panel measures approximately 14” w x 9”h x 4” d.
8.b
Packet Pg. 195
Palo Alto Public Safety Building Communications Tower Description
4 | P a g e
CABLING
All cabling to the antennas will be run internal to the monopole, exiting through the open center of
the ground plate, and will home run to equipment rooms inside the PSB.
Figure 1. Sherman Avenue Elevation
8.b
Packet Pg. 196
Palo Alto Public Safety Building Communications Tower Description
5 | P a g e
Figure 2. Additional Tower Views
8.b
Packet Pg. 197
Palo Alto Public Safety Building Communications Tower Description
6 | P a g e
Lightning Rod
Whip Antennas on cross arm
Panel Antennas
Future Microwave Dish (TBD)
Microwave Dish
(Civic Center)
Whip
Antenna
Microwave Dish
(Mtn View)
Figure 3. 80’ PAPSB Monopole attached to new PSB at 55’ above ground plane. Total height of
building and monopole tower is 135’.
8.b
Packet Pg. 198
LOT C6 - PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
Zoning designation: PF
Land use designation: Major Institutional Special Facility (MISP)
Maximum site coverage: 30%
Maximum FAR: 1:1
Maximum building height: 50’-0”; 35’-0” @ SW corner
Lot Area:1.27 acres (55,164 sf )
Existing lot coverage:Zero, the lot is undeveloped
Proposed lot coverage:29.20%
Existing floor area ratio (FAR):Zero the lot is undeveloped
Total floor area 48,917 sf (Building)
83,344 sf (Garage)
4,488 sf(Utility Yard)
Proposed floor area ratio (FAR): 0.74
Building foot print: 17,208 sf
Site area:55,164 sf
Proposed building height:49 feet
Existing onsite parking: 155 Spaces
Required new onsite parking: 162 Spaces
Proposed new onsite parking: 149 (Basement) + 12 (Surface)= 161 parking stalls
Existing easements None
COVER SHEET WITH GENERAL INFORMATION
PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING12/5/2019
TD-01
ARB SUBMITTAL
for
Communication Tower Design
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
250 Sherman Ave.
SHEET INDEX*
COVER SHEET WITH GENERAL INFORMATION TD-01
SOUTH ELEVATION - SHERMAN AVE.TD-02
EAST ELEVATION - PARK BLVD.TD-03
ENLARGED TOWER ELEVATION & PLAN SECTION TD-04
PERSPECTIVE FROM SHERMAN & PARK TD-05
8.c
Packet Pg. 199
80
'
-
0
"
55
'
-
0
"
14
0
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
SOUTH ELEVATION - SHERMAN AVE.
PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING12/5/2019
TD-02
Lightning Rod
150F6-20' omni
500F10-20ft omni
(6) 5BG5s spaced evenly
around pole
3' dish to Mtn View PD at 79'
above base AZ=123 deg
(Future) 3' dish
3' dish to PA City Hall/Civic
Center at 71' above base
AZ=321 deg
8.c
Packet Pg. 200
TD-04
1
EAST ELEVATION - PARK BLVD.
PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING12/5/2019
TD-03
8.c
Packet Pg. 201
PSB_LEVEL 02
16' - 6"
PSB_LEVEL 03
31' - 0"
ROOF
45' - 6"
PARAPET
47' - 6"
2
TD-04
1' - 1 1/2"
12" MIN.
1' - 0 1/8"
12
"
M
I
N
.
1'
-
0
1
/
2
"
MONOPOLE
MONOPOLE
CONNECTION PLATE
BRICK TOWER
MECH. SHAFT
2' -
0"
PANEL SEISMIC JOINT
MONOPOLE SUPPORT
PNEATRATION
4"6"2' - 3 1/4"6"
4" MIN.
9 1/2"
MONOPOLE SUPPORT PLATE ON
PRECAST PANEL
3
TD-04
As indicated
ENLARGED TOWER ELEVATION & PLAN SECTION
PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING12/5/2019
TD-04 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EE- EAST_PSB for Tower - Callout 1 ARB
3/8" = 1'-0"2 TOWER DETAIL PLAN -1 ARB
3/8" = 1'-0"3 ANTENNA BRACKET DETAIL
8.c
Packet Pg. 202
PERSPECTIVE FROM SHERMAN & PARK
PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING12/5/2019
TD-05
8.c
Packet Pg. 203