HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-06 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: May 6, 2021
Virtual Meeting
8:30 AM
****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 958 7390 8317 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March
17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference
only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable TV and through
Channel 26 of the Midpen Media Center at bit.ly/MidPenwatchnow.
Members of the public may comment by sending an email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org or by
attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting
can be found on the last page of this agenda. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project
plans and details.
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
_______________________
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.
2.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 4256 El Camino Real [21PLN-00034]: Request for
Changes to an Approved Project to Revise the Underground Garage Parking and
Clarify the Director's Parking Adjustment. Environmental Assessment: Use of a
Previous EIR. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact
the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org.
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3.Review the City of Palo Alto’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook, and
discuss implementation of its contents
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 1, 2021
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates –
Boardmember Lew
Adjournment
Ad Hoc Committee Items
5.233 University Avenue [18PLN-00344]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Two Benches.
Boardmembers Baltay and Lew will preside. Environmental Assessment: Exempt
From CEQA per Guideline Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: CD-C
(GF)(P) (Commercial Downtown Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian
Shopping Combining Districts). For More Information Contact the Project Planner
Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.
At Place Memo
_______________________
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.
Public comment is encouraged. Email the ARB at: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at bit.ly/paloaltoARB.
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.
_______________________
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.
Public Comment Instructions
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the
appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following
instructions carefully.
A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If
using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser:
Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality
may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.
B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify
you that it is your turn to speak.
C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The
moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to
unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow instructions B-E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
https://zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 958 7390 8317
Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
(you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service)
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 12239)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 5/6/2021
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. 5
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. 6
Architectural Review Board
2021 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2021 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/7/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
1/21/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
2/4/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
2/18/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
3/4/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
3/18/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
4/1/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
4/15/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
5/6/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
5/20/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
6/3/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
6/17/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
7/1/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
7/15/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
8/5/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
8/19/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
9/2/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
9/16/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
10/7/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
10/21/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
11/4/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
11/18/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
12/2/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
12/16/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular
2021 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments
Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing
January February March April May June
3/4 – Lee/Hirsch 4/15 – Baltay/Hirsch
5/6 – Baltay/Lew
July August September October November December
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Architectural Review Board
2021 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
May 20, 2021 Cancelled
June 3, 2021 486 Hamilton Avenue: Mixed Use project with four units (2nd Formal)
1.b
Packet Pg. 8
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11927)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/6/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 4256 El Camino Real: Parking Garage Revisions
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 4256 El Camino Real
[21PLN-00034]: Request for Changes to an Approved Project to
Revise the Underground Garage Parking and Clarify the
Director's Parking Adjustment. Environmental Assessment:
Use of a Previous EIR. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial).
For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel
Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Review the proposed project and provide recommendation to the Director of Planning
and Development Services based on the project's ability to meet ARB finding #1 and 4;
and
2. Provide feedback on the Director’s parking adjustment.
Background
Project Information
Owner: Catherine Huang Huang
Architect: Studio T Square
Representative: Randy Popp
Legal Counsel: N/A
Property Information
Address: 4256 El Camino Real
Neighborhood: Palo Alto Orchards
Lot Dimensions & Area: 163.5’ by 147.3’ to 95.2’; 25,960 sf
Housing Inventory Site: Yes; maximum yield of 17 units, realistic yield of 12 units
Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
Protected/Heritage Trees: 5 Street Trees; 4 Redwoods; 2 Cedars
Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable
Existing Improvement(s): 3,296 sf; Single Story; Built 1964
Existing Land Use(s): Retail Use (Eating & Drinking Services; Su Hong Restaurant)
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: CS (Residential Multi-Family)
West: CS (Residential Multi-Family)
East: CS(H) (The Sea Steak House & Dinah’s Poolside)
South: CS (General Business Office)
Aerial View of Property:
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation: Service Commercial (CS)
Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial
Context-Based
Design Criteria: Not Applicable
Downtown Urban
Design Guide: Not Applicable
South of Forest Avenue
Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable
Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable
El Camino Real Design
Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes, see discussion below
Proximity to Residential Not Applicable
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
Uses or Districts (150'):
Located w/in Airport
Influence Area: Not Applicable
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: None
PTC: None
HRB: None
ARB: Preliminary Review (August 17, 2017), Preliminary Review (December
21, 2017), First Formal Review (November 15, 2018), Second Formal
Review (January 17, 2019), Third Formal Review (January 16, 2020),
ARB Subcommittee (May 21, 2020)
Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview:
The following discretionary applications are being requested:
Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is
set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and
recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for
action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director
is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are
evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to
approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.
Project Description
This item concerns a request for changes to the previous Major Architectural Review project to
revise the approved subterranean parking garage and to clarify the Director’s Parking
Adjustment.
Applicant Request
The proposed project involves a revision to the previously approved Major ARB application for a
new 96 room hotel with a two-level subterranean parking garage. The revisions are specifically
to reduce the size of the parking garage from two levels to one level. The change reduces the
total number of parking spaces provided from 102 to 77 physical spaces. Given the high level of
public interest and public review of the project, the Director has required the proposed
revisions to be considered by the ARB to allow for public discussion and for the ARB's
comments and feedback. The ARB’s comments and recommendations will be provided to the
Director for final consideration of the proposed changes.
Approved Project
The proposed 96 room hotel requires 96 parking spaces; 1 parking space per room. During the
previous review of the project, the applicant sought a 15% parking adjustment along with an
adjustment for the size of the required on-site loading space. With an adjustment, the Director
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
can allow up to a 20% reduction in required parking spaces. However, for this project due to its
use, location, and size, the Director allowed only a 15% reduction in required parking.
The 15% parking reduction was granted in consideration of the proposed TDM and the parking
garage design which allowed for valet aisle parking spaces to be provided. Upon review of the
TDM program submitted by the applicant, and reviewed by the Office of Transportation, the
Director determined there were sufficient measures in place to approve a Director’s Parking
Adjustment to reduce the parking spaces by 15% of the total required spaces. The TDM
included on-site shuttle service, transit passes for employees, and bicycle parking as noted in
the approved TDM plan associated with the project.
Based on concerns from the neighborhood regarding sufficient parking, the applicant proposed
to use valets, which allow for the use of aisle spaces to park additional cars. With the valet aisle
spaces, the original project was essentially fully parked. To codify this agreement between the
neighbors and the applicant, these valet aisle parking spaces were added to the conditions of
approval. The valet parking spaces are not standard parking spaces and are only allowed as part
of a Director’s parking adjustment (PAMC 18.52.050). Moreover, the valet parking spaces in the
aisle ways of the project function as on demand parking spaces which would be used as parking
demand increases, without the need to provide a striped standard parking stalls which would
have required additional garage levels or lift parking. Thus the project provided parking and
parking services (valet) to fully park the hotel. It should be noted that during the final public
hearing for the project, the applicant stated that the project was fully parked and compliant in
terms of their parking requirement.
It is also notable that the aisle parking spaces via valet operations only exist within the
Municipal Code via PAMC 18.52.050, Adjustments by the Director as a Transportation and
Parking Alternative. Otherwise, accounting for such spaces is not allowed.
Proposed Revision
The applicant is proposing to reduce the garage to one parking level and reduce the proposed
parking from 102 parking spaces (6 over the requirement per room) to 77 parking spaces, via a
15% Director’s parking reduction. The Director’s parking adjustment options also include the
ability to use lift parking (PAMC 18.54.020 (4)) and five aisle spaces, as long as 24-hour valet
service is provided. The 24-hour valet service requirement is consistent with the conditions of
approval for the original project.
The applicant is proposing: 8 standard spaces (shuttle parking space included); 59 lift parking
spaces; 5 accessible spaces (counts twice towards the requirement); and 5 aisle parking spaces.
A latter section of the report expands on the counting methodology of accessible parking
spaces. This totals 82 spaces counted towards the required parking; while providing spaces for
77 physcial vehicles to park. This is 15% less than the code requires; or 14 spaces less than the
required 96 spaces.
Code Requirement Approved Project Proposed Project
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
Code Required Spaces 96
Standard Spaces
(including 1 shuttle
space)
N/A 54 8
Mechanical Lift Spaces Varies, at least 10% or 2
spaces must be standard
(exclusive of van-
accessible spaces)
26 59
Valet-Operated Aisle
Spaces
Allowed via Director’s
adjustment
17 5
ADA spaces (including 2
EV spaces)
5 (counts as 10)1 42 5 spaces; count
as 10 spaces
15% Parking reduction 96 x 15% = 14
96 – 14 = 82
Same Same
Total Code-Compliant
Spaces
- 102 82
Total Physical Parking
Spaces
- 102 77
The Director’s adjustment is calculated based on the total required parking for the site, which is
one parking space per guest room. The project has a total of 96 guest rooms, 15% of 96 spaces
is a 14 space reduction. At this rate, the project was granted a 15% reduction to allow for valet
spaces, which are on-demand spaces rather than static spaces. During the previous review of
the approved project, the aisle parking spaces were intended to providing greater flexibility
than standard spaces. The aisle parking allowing the project to reduce its dependence on lifts
and removed the need to provide a three-level garage while still having the capacity of a fully
parked project.
The revised parking design includes the maximization of parking lifts included in the project
while still being consistent with the Municipal Codes requirement for standard parking stalls
provided per PAMC 18.54.020(b)(4)G. This would, as the applicant states, reduce the
construction (excavation) and reduce the impacts of dewatering of groundwater. Finally, the
revision to the parking garage does include a lobby for arriving guests to the hotel garage and
provides an area for long-term bicycle parking that is removed from vehicle circulation areas.
Rationale For Revision Request
The applicant provides two main reasons for seeking the reduction. First, the applicant states
the proposed revision to the parking garage design provides benefits to both the “development
team and others” impacted in terms of cost, the efficiency of construction, reduced excavation,
1 The double counting of the ADA spaces is applied to the required parking total prior to any parking reduction
calculation. In this example the 5 ADA spaces
2 Since the project was approved, the way ADA spaces are counted has changed. When the project was approved,
each ADA space counts as one space.
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
reduced subsurface water management, and better material usage. Suggesting that the
approval of the single-level garage would reduce construction costs and construction impacts.
The construction impacts of the project to the neighbors were something that was commented
on throughout the project review and public hearings.
Second, the applicant cites a study indicating parking demand at Bay Area hotels is less than 1
per room. In their request letter, they site a study of 13 hotels in the Bay Area found that the
parking demand was 0.66 per hotel room. The study was conducted when hotel occupancies
were between 90 and 100 percent. The applicant argues that the proposed hotel parking ratio
is 0.85 per occupied room, providing 0.19 more parking spaces per occupied room than 13
other hotels (Attachment G).
Code Analysis3
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines4
The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of
the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and
is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on
projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with
applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code.
Several programs and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are geared toward TDM and parking
management. On balance, the proposed revision is found to be consistent with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. For a list of programs & policies in the draft ARB Findings (Attachment C).
Zoning Compliance5
Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project revision consistency with applicable
zoning standards in the attached summary table as well as consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan (Attachment B).
Consistency with Parking Facility Design Standards
In accordance with a thorough analysis, the proposed single-level garage design was analyzed
for consistency with PAMC 18.54 Parking Facility Design Standards. Attachment F provides the
parking and circulation memo that was conducted for this project. The same consultant
(Hexagon) for the previous approval was contracted for consistency and as before, was
3 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony
may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A
change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this
report.
4 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
5 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
managed by City Staff. The memo evaluates and documents the on-site circulation for the
proposed parking design change in relation to the site overall. This included the operations of
the porte-cochere, ground-level driveway, truck access, vehicle travel down to the garage,
garage vehicle movement (turning radius), valet operation, and parking stall requirements.
After a thorough review by Planning and Office of Transportation staff, the updated parking and
circulation memo provides evidence that the proposed garage design meeting the Municipal
Code design standards and would not adversely impact queuing on-site. The queuing factor is
of high importance as the approved EIR for the project requires a parking facility design and
operation of said facility to allow for enough on-site queuing that vehicles would not back up
onto El Camino Real. Attachment F provides an analysis of the traffic operations for the site,
detailing the projected trips (inbound and outbound). The analysis concludes the design
changes to the garage design provide enough queuing space on-site to accommodate the
projected queuing demand.
El Camino Real & Porte-cochere Operation
The ARB and members of the public were highly concerned about pick-up and drop-off
activities during the formal review of the project. Concerns included the possible curb
management and queuing on El Camino Real. The project was required to provide detailed and
highly visible directional signage and drive aisle painting. These measures were to provide
better direction to visitors and to facilitate efficient vehicle movement on site.
The approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan requires the hotel operator to
have regular communication with Transportation Network Companies (rideshare) to provide in-
app directions for their drivers to pull into the site and not to drop off or pick up hotel guests on
El Camino Real.
In light of this, the single-level garage configuration was analyzed for impacts to EL Camino Real
and the Porte-cochere operations. The analysis was done by the project consultant (Hexagon,
Attachment F) managed by the City. As mentioned previously, the report notes the proposed
changes are feasible in terms of circulation and regular operations without impacts to the
Porte-cochere circulation and El Camino Real queuing.
Accessible Parking Spaces
As mentioned earlier in this report, the Municipal Code was modified regarding how accessible
parking stalls are to be counted. New code language in PAMC 18.52.040(b)(8) states that van-
accessible parking spaces or accessible parking spaces with an adjacent accessible path of travel
shall count as two standard automobile parking spaces for purposes of the minimum parking
required. The code was updated to align with new State laws; the code now counts accessible
parking spaces and van-accessible parking spaces two times toward the required parking total.
This project includes five accessible spaces which count twice towards the parking requirement.
Requirement to Provide Showers
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
The project is also required to provide showers for employees as the hotel use is defined as a
retail-like use within PAMC 18.04.030(a)(125.1)(B). Employee showers are required for all new
buildings constructed over 24,999 sf when a retail service, personal service, or eating & drinking
service uses are present. The project has over 50,000 sf in floor area and is considered a retail
service (“retail-like”, PAMC 18.04.030(a)(125.1)(B)), which requires two showers for employees
per PAMC 18.16.060(j) Table 6. Additionally, the previously approved TDM plan includes bicycle
parking and shower facilities as part of the TDM infrastructure to achieve the required 30% trip
reduction. The employee showers must be included in the project in a feasible location on-site
and are shown in the proposed plans within the garage employee bathroom area.
Conclusion
While the subject of the Director’s parking adjustment is not generally in the purview of the
ARB, the proposed changes and possible impacts to the parking facility design and circulation
are subject to the ARB purview via ARB Finding #1 and 4. These finding require that 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 such as convenient vehicle access.
Based on the findings in the analysis above, the project appears to meet the requirements per
the zoning code in terms of the requested 15% parking reduction, parking facility design
standards as indicated in the memo, consistency with the previous queuing requirement, TDM
plan requirements, and the required employee amenities. The ARBs' comments and feedback
on the project's ability to meet Finding #1 and 4 would be forwarded to the Director to include
in his final consideration of the project request.
Environmental Review
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City. The Approved Project had a Draft EIR released for public
comment as required by law and a Final EIR associated with final approval of the project was
released on June 3, 2020. The modifications requested to the approved project's parking garage
were analyzed against the approved EIR and the MMRP to determine that the scope of the
modifications is within the scope of the approved EIR analysis and the MMRP.
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 April 23, 2021, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on
April 23, 2021, which is 13 in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may:
1. Recommend revisions of the proposal to return before the ARB to increase consistency
with ARB finding #1 and/or 4 at a date (un)certain; or
Report Author & Contact Information ARB6 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: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)
Attachment C: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)
Attachment D: Original Project Approval Letter (PDF)
Attachment E: Draft Conditions of Approval (Parking Project only) (DOCX)
Attachment F: Circulation Analysis (PDF)
Attachment G: Applicant's Parking Clarification Request Letter (PDF)
Attachment H: Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) (PDF)
Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX)
6 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
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
4256 EL Camino Real 21PLN-00034 (Proposed) vs 18PLN-00096 (Approved)
Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Hotel use
Type Required Approved* Proposed
Vehicle
Parking
Total required = 96 spaces
1 space per guestroom; plus the
applicable requirement for eating and
drinking, banquet, assembly, commercial
or other as required for such uses, less
up to 75% of the spaces required for
guestrooms, upon approval by the
director based on a parking study of
parking generated by the mix of uses.
Parking Lifts (PAMC 18.54.020(b)4)
Minimum of 2 spaces or 10% of parking
spaces provided, whichever is greater,
shall be provided as standard non-
mechanical parking spaces. Accessible
spaces are not counted towards this
requirement.
Parking lifts for non-residential and office
uses requires on-site valet service
85 (102) spaces
Includes 26 mechanical lifts,
54 standard, 1 shuttle, 4 ADA
spaces
Reduction of 15% (14 spaces)
via Director’s Adjustment for
TDM program.
17 Additional Valet Aisle
Parking spaces
Total = 85 spaces and 17 valet
spaces = 102 spaces
(Application was approved
with 20 spaces over Director’s
adjustment, 6 spaces over
standard Code amount)
Parking on-site is 100%
managed by 24 hour valet
service
82 spaces
77 physical spaces, as
ADA spaces, count
twice 18.52.040(b)(8))
59 mechanical lifts*, 5
aisle parking, 5 ADA, 1
standard EV, 8
standard parking
spaces (shuttle space
included).
Parking on-site is
100% managed by 24
hour valet service
Bicycle
Parking
10 spaces required
1 space per 10 guestrooms, plus
requirements for accessory uses
(drinking, banquet, assembly,
commercial or other), (100% short-term)
12 long-term spaces
10 short-term spaces
6 long-term spaces
Loading
Space
1 loading space for 10,000 - 99,999 sf 1 space**, Reduced size via
Director’s adjustment to 10 ft
wide by 30 ft long
No Change Proposed
*18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director - Transportation and Parking Alternatives (up to 20% Reduction) Where effective alternatives
to automobile access are provided, other than those listed above, parking requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate
with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by such alternative
programs. Examples of such programs may include, but are not limited to, transportation demand management (TDM) programs or
innovative parking pricing or design solutions.
**18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director - Modification to Off-Street Loading Requirements (Maximum Reduction of one loading
space) The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off-street loading requirements for non-residential development based
on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon finding
that: 1) the off-street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning,
circulation, and access, or urban design principles; and 2) the use of shared on-street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation, and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one
loading space.
2.b
Packet Pg. 19
ATTACHMENT C
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
4256 El Camino Real, 21PLN-00034
In order for the ARB to make a recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the
following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC.
The requested project revisions consist of changes to the approved parking facility design for
application 18PLN-000265 and the approved Director’s Parking Adjustment. Therefore, only
Findings #1 and 4 apply to the requested project revisions.
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.
Program T1.2.3 states: Formalize TDM requirements by ordinance and require new
developments above a certain size threshold to prepare and implement a TDM Plan to meet
specific performance standards. Require regular monitoring/reporting and provide for
enforcement with meaningful penalties for non-compliance. The ordinance should also:
Allow property owners to achieve reductions by contributing to citywide or
employment district shuttles or other proven transportation programs that are not
directly under the property owner’s control.
The project proposed TDM plan can feasibly achieving the 30% trip reduction
requirements of the project. Included in this TDM plan is a hotel shuttle that will take
guests and employees to Caltrain stations, providing an alternative to single-occupancy
vehicle use. Additionally, the TDM plan includes transit passes for employees as well as
sufficient bicycle parking facilities on-site.
GOAL T-5 states: Encourage attractive, convenient, efficient, and innovative parking solutions
for all users.
The project proposes a parking garage design that is consistent with the design
standards, encouraging parking facilities to be designed out of public view with
subterranean design. The parking garage design meets the parking facility design
standards required by the Municipal Code and maintains efficient circulation on-site.
Policy T-5.1 states: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by
the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking
regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for
new construction should decrease.
2.c
Packet Pg. 20
The project as analyzed provides parking on-site based on the established parking
regulations within the Municipal Code and within the measures of the revised TDM plan,
which would avoid the need for on-street parking.
Policy T-5.6 states: 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.
The project proposes below-grade parking and includes mechanical parking lifts
consistent with the Municipal Code requirements. The proposed revision changing the
approved project’s two level parking garage to a one level garage would require less
excavation and may have less of an impact on groundwater.
Policy T-5.7 states: Require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and bicycle
safety
The project proposed a single-level garage design that provides a garage level lobby for
visitors to the site and also includes proper bicycle storage areas away from vehicle
circulation areas.
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.
Not applicable, see Finding #4
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.
Not applicable
2.c
Packet Pg. 21
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 continue the existing circulation and access for vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists modes of transportation to the site. The modifications to the subterranean parking
garage maintain 24-hour valet service. It also provides pedestrian access via a defined garage
lobby area with elevators connecting to the upper floors of the hotel. Similarly, bicycle access is
maintained on-site with access from the ground level to the bicycle parking area within the
garage via the hotel elevators. The design change as analyzed does not impact the function and
circulation of the ground-level driveways. Maintaining consistent access and loading operations
with the previously approved design.
Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its
surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical,
regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat
that can be appropriately maintained.
Not applicable
Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas
related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning.
Not applicable
2.c
Packet Pg. 22
June 3, 2020
Randy Popp/Randolph Popp Architect
904 High Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: 4256 El Camino Real [18PLN-00096] New Hotel
Dear Mr. Popp:
On January 16, 2020, the Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the application
referenced above and as described below. The Director of Planning and Development Services (Director)
approved the project on June 3, 2020. The approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark
date of this letter unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The approval was based on the findings in Attachment A, and is subject to the conditions of approval in
Attachment B for the project. The project is described as follows:
4256 El Camino Real [18PLN-00096]: Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of
an Existing 3,300 Square Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Five-Story approximately
51,300 Square Foot, 96 Room Hotel with Below-Grade Parking. A Director's Adjustment is Requested for
a Reduction in Required On-site Parking (15%) and Loading Space Dimensions. Environmental
Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this project. The DEIR was
circulated for public comment from December 20, 2019, to February 10, 2020, and the response to
comments was released on May 20, 2020. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial).
Unless an appeal is filed, this project approval shall be effective for two years from June 17, 2020, within
which time construction of the project shall have commenced. Application for extension of this
entitlement may be made prior to the expiration date. The time period for a project may be extended
once for an additional year by the Director. In the event the building permit is not issued for the project
and construction has not commenced within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review
approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect.
Should you have questions regarding this ARB action, please to contact the Project Planner, Samuel
Gutierrez, by email at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org or by phone at (650) 329-2225.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Lait
Director of Planning & Development Services
cc: HXH Property LLC, 2225 E Bayshore Rd Suite 2000, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Attachments: A: Findings for Architectural Review Approval
B: Conditions of Approval
2.d
Packet Pg. 23
Page 2 of 26
18PLN-00096
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
180 El Camino Real / File No. 18PLN-00096
Section A: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings
The Director of Planning and Development Services (Director) makes the following findings:
1. The environmental effects of the project have been analyzed in the Initial Study and the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
2. The draft EIR identified one or more potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment
as well as mitigation measures that would reduce the significant effects to a less than significant
level. The project applicant, before the public release of the draft EIR, has made revisions to the
Project that clearly mitigate the effects to a less than significant level as demonstrated through the
adoption of the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Attachment C of this
approval.
3. The Director has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study, the EIR, together with any
public comments received during the public review process and other information in the record, prior
to acting upon or approving the project.
4. The EIR reflects and represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto as the
lead agency.
5. Based on the whole record of proceedings, the Director hereby finds that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and does hereby adopt the
Environmental Impact Report and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for
the project.
6. The Director of Planning and Development Services at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California
94301 is the custodian of records and documents of proceedings on which this decision is based.
Section B: Architectural Review Findings
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.
On balance, the project can be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and
Policies.
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to
Comprehensive 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
2.d
Packet Pg. 24
Page 3 of 26
18PLN-00096
POLICY B-6: Maintain distinct neighborhood
shopping areas that are attractive, accessible, and
convenient to nearby residents.
POLICY B-1.7: Encourage businesses of all kinds to
advance Palo Alto’s commitment to fiscal and
environmental sustainability.
POLICY L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a
local serving and regional serving corridor, defined
by a mix of commercial uses and housing
POLICY L-2.12: Encourage new development and
redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural
features such as green rooftops, pocket parks,
plazas, and rain gardens.
The proposed façade would be of high-quality
finishes and materials that are incorporated into a
cohesive design that will enhance the existing
streetscape along El Camino Real.
The proposal would result in a new business that
serves both local and regional customers who seek
lodging in Palo Alto while complying with current
Green Building construction and operating
standards. The proposal will redevelop an
underutilized parcel along El Camino Real and will
provide a local and regional serving business.
The project involves new planting throughout the
property including a large plaza in the interior of the
property for hotel guests.
POLICY L-9.2 Encourage development that
creatively integrates parking into the project,
including by 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.
POLICY L-9.7: Strengthen the identity of important
community-wide gateways, including the entrances
to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real and
Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to
commercial districts; Embarcadero Road at El
Camino Real and between Palo Alto and Stanford.
The project proposes an underground parking
structure that utilizes parking lifts (puzzle lift
systems), removing all surface parking from the site
and allowing for a more engaging frontage.
Additionally, the project will provide new street
trees in the public right of way that are more
sustainable and suitable for the site.
The project proposes a new hotel near the city’s
southern boundary along El Camino Real,
contributing to the South El Camino corridor's visual
business identity and hotel area vision.
PROGRAM L9.10.2: Encourage the use of compact
and well-designed utility elements, such as
transformers, switching devices, backflow
preventers, and telecommunications infrastructure.
Place these elements in locations that will minimize
their visual intrusion.
The project locates backflow preventers, gas meters,
electric transformers, and switch gears out of the
view of the public by placing them along with the
interior of the building footprint and the edges of the
building along the interior lot lines.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH THE EL CAMINO REAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
This application is also subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Conforming with these Guidelines, the
project includes (in brief) several features as follows:
1) Planting new street trees along the El Camino Real frontage.
2) The site plan and building design provides all of the on-site parking below grade.
3) All mechanical equipment will be screened from public view.
4) The project's trash enclosure is located out of public view.
5) The building's design provides all elevations with an integrated consistent design throughout, maintaining
2.d
Packet Pg. 25
Page 4 of 26
18PLN-00096
the overall architectural theme of the building.
6) The design of the new building is softened with the use of dark wood panels that connect the building
façade with the existing mature redwoods that surround the site.
7) The site plan of the project is developed to minimize the impacts to the adjacent multi-family development
by stepping down the building heights from five stories down to two stories as the building approaches the
rear property line.
8) The buildings’ footprint on the site plan is oriented away from the adjacent residential developments’
common open space area by the “C” shaped site plan of the project with the opening of the “C” shaped site
plan facing the common open space area, minimizing the impact to light and air.
9) The outdoor areas and landscape design provide a functional usable open space that is well integrated into
the project's overall design.
10) The building design of the project places smaller windows facing towards the property lines and larger
windows facing to the interior plaza area of the site to minimize privacy impact to the adjacent residential
development (condominium complex) while still providing natural light for hotel patrons.
The checklist below provides greater details regarding the projects consistency with the applicable South El
Camino Real (ECR) Design Guidelines in conjunction with the 1979 Council-adopted El Camino Real (ECR)
Design Guidelines. The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines provide direction for enhancing the quality of
El Camino Real. While the guidelines address issues and details ranging from lot coverage and site planning to
the treatment of parking lots and façade details, several overriding design principles provide the guiding
framework for new projects. The South ECR Design Guidelines provides both general and area-specific
guidelines to achieve the District Vision. The following checklist details at length the project's compliance with
the applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines, especially the El Camino Real South/Hotel Area:
Guiding Principles Project Consistency
1 Within a pedestrian node (California Av., Barron-
Ventura or Triangle at El Camino Way)
Not applicable
2 A 12' sidewalk (curb face to building) with trees,
planters, and seating
The project has a 12’ effective sidewalk, with
public seating and street trees along the El
Camino Real frontage
3 Built with the front wall (building face) located at
the back of the sidewalk
Project is built to the front property line
4 Outdoor seating and dining, where appropriate The project has outdoor seating both along El
Camino Real and within the interior courtyard
5 A minimum height of 25 feet (2 and 3-story
building) to reinforce the street's importance
The project meets the minimum height
requirement, proposing 5 stories at El Camino
Real and defines this portion of the street
6 An entry or entries facing El Camino Real, so the
building is oriented to the street
The project has entries facing and oriented
towards El Camino Real
7 On a street comer, incorporate special features to
highlight the building
Not applicable
8 Facades that animate street: doors and windows,
arcades, awnings, balconies, stairs
The façade provides a high-end design with well-
integrated windows and balcony design along EL
Camino Real
9 Flat roofs and parapets to create a cohesive
streetscape
The roof forms and parapets are cohesive in
design and height along the streetscape
2.d
Packet Pg. 26
Page 5 of 26
18PLN-00096
10 Facades that have clearly expressed bases, bodies,
and roofs or parapets.
The project complies by providing a cohesive
design along the streetscape with well-
integrated flat roofs and parapets. The building
facades provide appropriate articulation well
meeting the ECR Hotel Area build-to-lines
requirements while having clear architectural
forms along ECR
11 Scale and presence proportional to the scale and
importance of El Camino Real
The project complies as the design meets the
minimum height guideline, the setback
guidelines, the street frontage guidelines for the
subject corridor area which reinforce the ECR
Design Guidelines massing placement
requirements to create a “street wall”
12 Adjacent to a residential neighborhood, variations
in scale, articulation, setbacks
Not applicable – not located within a residential
neighborhood. Though the massing articulation
is tapered down to provide a descending
variation in scale with a sizable setback from the
rear property line in consideration of the
adjacent multi-story residential complex
Site Planning and Landscape Design Concepts Project Consistency
Node Area Projects: Not applicable
15 At least 75% of building face is at ECR setback
line/build-to-line
Not applicable
16 On a comer, the building occupies 50% of side
street frontage
Not applicable
Corridor Area Projects (Cal Ventura, Hotel Area): Hotel Area
18 At least 50% of building face is at ECR setback
line/build-to-line
The project meets this requirement with
approximately 60% of the building face located
at the ECR setback line/build-to-line
19 On a comer, the building occupies 33% of side
street frontage
Not applicable
Increased Setbacks: (more than the build-to-line)
21 An increased setback that does not exceed 20 feet
of the property frontage length
The project complies, not exceeding a 20-foot
front setback
22 Public amenities (wider sidewalk, outdoor seating
or dining)
The project provides public seating, an effective
12’ sidewalk, and outdoor dining
Curb Cuts and Parking Lots
24 A minimized curb cut width The curbs cuts for the project are as minimal as
circulation design requirements allow for
25 An extension of sidewalk material and width across
driveways
The project complies proposing a complete
sidewalk material along the project frontage
26 Sharing a driveway with adjoining property Not applicable
27 Using alley access or side street access to the
parking lot
Not applicable
28 Parking lot no more than 50% of ECR frontage, no
more than 120’
The project complies, 100% of the parking is
located in the subterranean garage
2.d
Packet Pg. 27
Page 6 of 26
18PLN-00096
Usable Open Space Amenities
30 Attractive and functional plazas, seating and
activity areas
The project provides a large functional well-
landscaped plaza within the property with
outdoor seating
31 Canopies and covered trellises The outdoor seating area provides trellises
32 Careful treatment of property edges and spaces
between buildings
The project includes integrally and cohesively
designed walkways, landscaping, and decorative
fencing along the edges of the property
Landscape and Hardscape
33 Extensive planting and the use of other landscape
amenities to create “outdoor rooms”. Hardscape
features should not just be visually appealing but
also function as open space amenities to be used
and enjoyed.
The project complies by providing well defined
outdoor areas within the project site. Hardscape
and landscape features complement each other
to form well designed clear pathways to outdoor
seating and around the building
Site Lighting
34 Emphasize pedestrian path and safety, minimize
glare
The project complies by providing low set
(installed) pedestrian lighting along the exterior
pedestrian pathways to provide sufficient
lighting at night for pathways while minimizing
glare
35 Use a variety of fixtures that are integrated into
building/landscape design
The project complies by providing a variety of
light fixture types throughout the project and
the exterior landscape areas which are well
integrated into the design of both of the building
and open spaces
Alleys Not applicable
37 Windows and doors oriented toward an alley Not applicable
38 Alleyway service facilities screened with enclosures Not applicable
39 Durable, attractive garage doors, entry doors,
windows at alleyways
Not applicable
40 Alley lighting directed to not impact adjacent
properties
Not applicable
Building Design Concepts Project Consistency
42 An articulated base, body, and roof/parapet The project complies by articulated the base via
the porte-cochere, center mass recess, and the
opening for the street-facing outdoor dining
area. The building façade as clearly expressed
forms (bodies) and flat roofs
43 Expressed structural bays The project complies by designing the buildings
structural supports and windows to create visual
interest with a cohesive rhythm and pattern of
the façade
44 Facades parallel to the right of ways The project complies, the building facades are
parallel to the right of way
45 Exceptions to front or side daylight plane
requirements
The project complies, per the CS zoning, there
are no daylight plane requirements
2.d
Packet Pg. 28
Page 7 of 26
18PLN-00096
46 Design consistency on all facades The project complies with a consistent design,
material usage, and color scheme throughout
the exterior of the building
47 An articulated façade rather than a merely
decorative or false front
The project complies by providing a central
building articulation in the façade forming two
building forms at the street with a center
recessed massing that is complemented by open
spaces at the street level ground floor along with
trimmed/relief windows and well-intergated
balconies for refinement in the articulation
48 ADA features as an integral part of building design The project complies with accessibility
requirements providing accessible paths of
travel to the hotel entrances
49 Recessed entry arcades The project complies providing recessed entry
to the hotel lobby accessible via the sidewalk
and porte-cochere
Awnings
51 Spaces to gather or retreat The project complies providing retreat areas via
balconies and the covered outdoor seating area
located at the first floor on the northernmost
portion of the buildings street façade
52 Habitable space in front of parking such as building
space, storefronts, and lobbies along the frontage
The project complies providing the parking
below grade-level
Windows
54 Inset windows The project complies providing inset windows
55 Display windows Not applicable
56 At least 75% of the doors and windows along the
ground floor ECR façade are transparent
The project complies providing expansive glass
windows along the ground floor ECR façade
57 Transparent windows along at least 50% of upper-
level ECR facades
The project complies, all windows are
transparent
Rooflines
59 Prominent cornices and rooflines The project complies utilizing rooflines that are
consistent with the design of the building and
are prominent
60 A flat roof and/or a roof form reflecting façade
articulation
The project complies utilizing flat roofs that
project and cap/top the structural elements and
articulation of the building
61 Parapet hides rooftop mechanical equipment The project complies providing parapets and
mechanical screening that sufficiently screens
rooftop equipment
Materials
63 Durable, high-quality materials to convey integrity,
permanence, and durability
The project complies as detailed in ARB finding
#3
64 Materials integral to façade and structure, not
arbitrarily applied
The project complies as the materials are fully
integrated and consistent throughout the design
2.d
Packet Pg. 29
Page 8 of 26
18PLN-00096
of the project and not haphazardly applied to
the design
Signage
66 Sign colors limited as set forth in 1979 El Camino
Real Design Guidelines (minimum color variations)
The project signage complies utilizing a color
scheme for directional signage that is clear and
easy to read while minimizing color variations
67 Sign area limited to 2/3 of the maximum sign area
per PAMC (1979 ECRDG)
The project signage is limited to the directional
signage within the approved plan set. The
signage for the hotel moniker is referenced only
for placement/location on the elevations as
required by the 1979 ECRDG. The “ANALOG”
signage is not approved and will require review
and approval of a separate minor signage
application. The included signage and reference
moniker signage would meet the 2/3 max
signage area requirement
68 Integrated into building façade The project signage is well integrated into the
building façade
69 Individually formed letters (no sign cabinets) The project meets this requirement
70 Window sign coverage no greater than 20%
maximum
Not applicable
71 No new pole signs Not applicable
72 Monument signage only when no feasibility for wall
signs on building
Not applicable
73 Wall wash lighting or halo lighting ("reverse pan
channel letters")/backlighting of signs
Not applicable
74 Colors that coordinate with building colors (no
fluorescent or very bright colors)
The project complies providing a coordinated
color scheme that is neutral absent of
fluorescent and bright colors
Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community;
b. Preserves, respects, and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site
and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant;
c. Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district,
d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use
designations;
e. Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential
areas.
The project is proposing a new building with a façade that will enhance the local environment for the
community and patrons to local businesses alike. The design of the new building is consistent with the context-
based design criteria within the CS zone, as further described below. The proposal will also conform to code
required setbacks through the site and will provide a pedestrian-friendly 12-foot sidewalk along the frontage
of the site.
2.d
Packet Pg. 30
Page 9 of 26
18PLN-00096
Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable
to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in
the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development
in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well
as to promote the establishment of pedestrian-oriented design.
1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency
The design of new projects shall promote
pedestrian walkability, a bicycle-friendly
environment, and connectivity through design
elements
The project will enhance the pedestrian
environment by providing a 12 ft sidewalk and a
restaurant with patio seating near the street.
The project will also provide 10 bicycle parking
spaces on site. The project has a large lobby with
full-length windows that connects to the interior
plaza area of the site, promoting an open and
inviting frontage. The project is proposing
pedestrian seating along El Camino Real.
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 proposed building includes a recessed entry
and cantilever features that will function as a
shelter for pedestrians. The proposed building
also will have large clear windows that connect
the interior of the building to the sidewalk and
street, in addition to a restaurant patio that
promotes pedestrian activity.
3. Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing
and conform to proper setbacks
The proposed project will substantially increase
the existing massing while creating a new larger
front setback (12 ft wide sidewalk) from the
street. Interior side setbacks vary while
maintaining at least a 10 ft setback along the
interior lot lines and a minimum 16 ft in the rear
setback. All of which conform to Code required
setbacks and daylight plane requirements.
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 as the project site is
adjacent to the commercially zoned property
with a dense multi-story multi-family residential
development. However, the proposed design
has taken the adjacent multi-family
development privacy into account and designed
the building in a manner where larger windows
are oriented to the interior plaza of the
development. Furthermore, the rear portion of
the project’s building design steps down
reducing the massing of the building down to
two stories at the most rear-facing portion to
lower the scale of the building relative to the
neighboring four.
2.d
Packet Pg. 31
Page 10 of 26
18PLN-00096
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 a large open plaza area in
the interior lobby of the site will be the future
location of a public art installation and will be
open for visitors of the site and the public alike.
additionally, the project is proposing public art
on the exterior of the building at the ground
level between the driveways along El Camino
Real.
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 remove existing on-
site parking and replace surface parking with
underground parking making use of parking lift
systems. No parking will be visible from the
street level and the character of the site
promotes an engaging frontage from the street
level.
7. Large Multi-Acre Sites
Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so
that street, block, and building patterns are
consistent with those of the surrounding
neighborhood
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 be constructed in accordance
with current green building energy efficiency
requirements and will utilize natural materials
such as glass, wood, metal, concrete which are
readily recyclable. The project will also
incorporate a landscape plan that is water
efficient and drought tolerant.
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 involves durable materials and high-quality finishes. The new façade will have a mixture of
materials with medium-dark wood-like paneling and a neutral color scheme consisting of brown, tan and black.
Additional materials such as dark finished metal provide contrast to the wood façade softening the frontage
of the site and fitting of the character and enhancing the surrounding the area. Aged gold metal accents
compliment the dark wood paneling. The balconies feature a decorative “parasoleil” screen railing design.
Window frames are of high quality, creating interest, refinement in the building design, and enhance the El
Camino Real in accordance with the applicable 1979 Council-adopted El Camino Real (ECR) Design Guidelines
and the South El Camino Real (ECR) Design Guidelines as detailed previously in findings.
2.d
Packet Pg. 32
Page 11 of 26
18PLN-00096
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 includes a porte-cochere laid out in a lower case “h” shape, allowing for passenger and
service/delivery vehicles that support the day to day operation of the proposed hotel while providing easy
access for arriving vehicles into the underground garage. The porte-cochere includes a two-lane driveway
(single direction) that can accommodate the service vehicles up to 30 feet in length (SU-30 vehicles). New
utility equipment and meters are easily accessible as they are placed on the edges of the building. Additionally,
the project is proposed to have new vehicle directional signage and pedestrian/vehicle alert signs promoting
safer site circulation. The project's pedestrian pathways are designed to allow patrons to easily access the
main lobby, the central outdoor plaza and garden area, and have sufficient pathway widths around the site
for pedestrian access. The site provides sufficient bicycle parking that is located near primary entries within
clear view and or located near supportive amenities in accordance with bicycle parking facilities.
Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is
appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought-
resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
The project meets the findings as it includes new planting throughout the site, with 10 of the 24 proposed
plants being California native plants within the interior plaza garden area of the site. All of the proposed
plantings are either low water use (10 total) or medium water use (14). Additionally, some of the plants in the
plant palette attract wildlife such as the Azalea Autumn Cheer, Arbutus Menziesii (birds and bees), Pittosporum
tenuifolium (birds), California Gray Rush (Perennial grasslike herb, pollinators), and the Platanus x Acerifolia
“Yardwood” (birds).
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 also comply with all applicable green building codes for energy-efficient buildings such as the
use of energy-efficient lighting, insulation, and will utilize materials such as glass, wood, and concrete which
are readily recyclable. The project also utilizes landscaping in the plant palette that is moderate to low water
usage with nearly half of the selected plants being native to California.
2.d
Packet Pg. 33
Page 12 of 26
18PLN-00096
ATTACHMENT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (COA)
180 El Camino Real / File No. 18PLN-00096
_______________________________________________________________________
PLANNING DIVISION
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans
entitled, "ANALOG A Boutique Hotel” stamped as received by the City on November 11, 2019, and detailed
further by the ARB Subcommittee plan set stamped as received by the City on May 1, 2020, on file with
the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, except as modified by these
conditions of approval.
2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public
Works, and Building Departments.
3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The Architectural Review (AR) approval letter including all Department
conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit.
4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and
approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is
modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project
planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to
highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention.
5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original
date of approval if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of
buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval.
Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC
18.77.090(a))
6. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be
permanently maintained and replaced as necessary.
7. SIGNAGE. The project signage is limited to the directional signage within the approved plan set. The
signage for the hotel moniker “ANALOG” is for reference only. This moniker sign is not approved and will
require review and approval of a separate minor signage application that conforms with Title 16.20 and
meets the El Camino Real Design Guidelines.
8. DIRECTOR’S PARKING ADJUSTMENT. The proposal includes a request for a Director’s adjustment to the
minimum parking requirement for the site of 96 parking spaces. The adjustment results in the net
reduction of fourteen (14) parking spaces, for a total of 85 standard/lift parking spaces. While valet parking
spaces are not counted towards the required minimum, the project will provide an additional 17 parking
spaces via valet aisle parking, bringing the project to a total of 102 parking spaces.
Additionaly, the proposal includes a request for a Director’s adjustment to allow a reduction in the
required dimensions for an off-street loading area. The adjustment request is to provide a reduced loading
area sized for a SU-30 truck type, as the code required load area conflicts with site design planning and
required design guidelines. The SU-30 truck type is representative of the truck type that would service the
site/use. The porte-cochere area was reviewed for circulation and SU-30 truck access, and was found to
be sufficient for an off-street loading area that does not conflict with vehicle access or circulation to the
below-grade garage, as passenger vehicles may pass the loading area via the second driveway aisle.
In accordance with PAMC 18.52.050, a Director’s Adjustment of 15% of the total parking requirement is
approved in accordance with the approved Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan dated
2.d
Packet Pg. 34
Page 13 of 26
18PLN-00096
received May 29, 2020, along with the adjustment to the required dimensions of an off-street loading
area.
9. MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING SYSTEM. Up to 26 of the required 85 parking spaces are approved to be
provided in a mechanical lift parking system, which allows independent access to each vehicle. The
property owner and/or hotelier shall have a maintenance agreement with the lift system manufacturer to
ensure the system shall be operational at all times. If the lift system is out of operation for any reason,
anyone who is not able to retrieve their vehicle within a 15-minute period shall be reimbursed by the
property owner or their designee for travel expenses up to $50 per occurrence.
10. VALET PARKING. The valet drop-off area shall be located on the first basement level. Valet parking services
shall be provided at all times (24 hours a day) on-site to ensure queuing of cars is kept to a minimum and
that efficient use of the mechanical parking lifts is achieved. To the satisfaction of the Director, signage
shall be posted informing visitors that valet parking is required and that anyone who is not able to retrieve
their vehicle within a 15-minute period due to parking lift malfunction, are to be reimbursed for travel
expenses up to $50 per occurrence as detailed in COA #10.
11. TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT: The applicant shall abide by the Final
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “Analog Hotel Parking & Transportation
Demand Management Plan (TDM), received May 29, 2020”, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
and Development Services. The TDM plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in
single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 30%, in conformance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips
to the project site. The TDM annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation
Official. Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is
not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the
required reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule.
12. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (Palo Alto TMA). The subject site has the option to
participate in the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (http://www.paloaltotma.org/) or
any successor Transportation Management Association/Program that is designed to reduce commute
trips to and from the City of Palo Alto as indicated in the approved TDM program to achieve the required
trip reductions. The property owner shall ensure this condition is included in all lease agreements in order
to streamline implementation.
13. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES. The property owner shall work with transportation network
companies (TNCs, i.e. LYFT/Uber) to ensure the hotel’s porte-cochere is the designated drop-off and pick-
up location to avoid such activities along El Camino Real.
14. NO PARKING/NO STOPPING LOCATIONS. The project frontage along El Camino Real shall be posted as no
parking/stopping with the curb between the project’s driveways painted red to ensure the free flow of
traffic in this area.
15. NO QUEUING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. No queuing shall be allowed on the public right-of-way. All
loading/unloading shall take place on-site.
16. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT. An updated noise report shall be conducted prior to the issuance of any
building permit to ensure all rooftop mechanical equipment and any other noise-producing equipment is
in compliance with City Noise regulations. Should the findings of the report indicate the selected
equipment exceeds allowable noise levels per section 9.10 of the Municipal Code, the applicant shall
submit replacement equipment that would be within the allowed noise limits. This will be confirmed with
additional noise reports as needed.
2.d
Packet Pg. 35
Page 14 of 26
18PLN-00096
17. AMPLIFIED SOUND. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing
sound in or upon any open area between the hours of 10:00 pm and one hour after sunrise.MITIGATION
18. MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
associated with the project and attached here as Attachment C is to be incorporated by reference and all
mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in said document. Prior to requesting the issuance
of any grading, demolition and/or construction permits, the developer/owner shall pay a deposit to the
City for a third-party consultant selected and managed by the City for MMRP implementation and
documentation. The third party consultant contract shall include monthly reports to the City to ensure
compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development
Services.
19. SIDEWALK EASEMENT. The applicant shall include an offer of dedication for a public access easement for
the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge
that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements.
20. UTILITY EASEMENT. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit documentation for
a revision to the existing public utility easement to reflect the new location of the sites utility transformers.
21. 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.
22. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $1,322,100.47 shall
be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit.
23. 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 receive final approval of the
art plan 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 the release of the final Use and Occupancy
permit. The proposed location of the public art is within the building as indicated on sheet A3.15 of the
approved plan set.
24. 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, 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.
25. 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
2.d
Packet Pg. 36
Page 15 of 26
18PLN-00096
during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials,
landscaping, and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at
samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection.
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT:
26. The project is designed to extend the storm drain main on El Camino Real and connect the site’s storm
runoff into that extended main as opposed to discharging through thru-curb drains. The applicant is
required to provide approval from Caltrans to do so as this is within the Caltrans right of way and storm
drain main.
27. A structure is proposed over an existing Public Utility Easement. Applicant will need to provide
documentation verifying easement has been abandoned (recorded document from the County) or obtain
an encroachment permit for a structure within a PUE by submitting an encroachment permit application,
insurance meeting PW requirements, and a plan that will be reviewed by both Utilities’ groups and the
storm drain division.
28. 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 planning 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. 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. Applicant provided preliminary third party approval of
the project in entitlement. Please provide this C.3 data form stamped and signed by the qualified third
party reviewer, and a stamped and signed letter from the third party reviewer confirming plans are in
compliance with MRP 2.0 Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. These must be provided prior to PWE approval
of Grading or Building permits.
29. 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. Please note,
applicant will be required to obtain a permit from both Caltrans and the City for shoring to encroach onto
El Camino Real frontage right of way. This will require approval from Caltrans and all applicable City utility
departments and is not guaranteed to be approved.
30. Applicant will be required to offer a dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension
2.d
Packet Pg. 37
Page 16 of 26
18PLN-00096
of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino
Real Master Plan requirements. If no mapping is to be done for this project, the dedication will be required
to be recorded in advance of building permit issuance.
31. Applicant will be required to dedicate a Public Utility Easement at the location of the new proposed
transformer. If no mapping is to be done for this project, the dedication will be required to be recorded in
advance of building permit issuance.
32. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Plans provided do not show if the existing site drainage
has a direct discharge into the existing system. Provide an analysis that compares the existing and
proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design
Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm
with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design
Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan.
This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added
flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto
is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project
shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system.
33. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all sidewalks, curbs,
gutters, and driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage of the property. The site
plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan
must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed
contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center.
34. 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 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).
35. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works
prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior
of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however,
required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists
of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device
onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water
can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water
that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level
spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for
flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and
inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement.
36. DEWATERING: Proposed 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
2.d
Packet Pg. 38
Page 17 of 26
18PLN-00096
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
37. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total
is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading
permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and
guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website.
38. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan"
sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
39. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting
of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by
Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction
protection of the trees per City requirements.
40. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public
right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include
notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must
first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a
different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must
be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and
driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip.
41. 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.
42. 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 issuance of the Building and/or
Grading permit. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee.
43. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk
to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the
sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33
requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings
sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet,
the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in
order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.”
44. LOGISTICS PLAN: The 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. The plan will be attached to a street work permit.
45. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino
Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that
requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks
by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways
2.d
Packet Pg. 39
Page 18 of 26
18PLN-00096
off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project.
46. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit
application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation,
elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over
excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any
existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the
Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions
from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated
groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water
Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City
of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website.
47. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified
licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall
include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes (cut and fill in CY), pad,
finished floor, garage elevation, base flood elevation (if applicable) grades along the project conforms,
property lines, or back of walk. See PAMC Section 16.28.110 for additional items. Projects that front
directly into the public sidewalk, shall include grades at the doors or building entrances. Provide drainage
flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5%
for 10-feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Label the downspouts, splashblocks (2-feet long min) and any
site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points
and grade breaks. Provide dimensions between the bubblers and property lines. In no case shall drainage
across property lines exceed that which existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. In particular,
runoff from the new garage shall not drain into neighboring property. For additional grading and drainage
detail design See Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717
48. Provide the following note on the Grading and Drainage Plan and/or Site Plan: “Contractor shall contact
Public Works Engineering (PWE) 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”.
49. Decorative streetlights shall be added to meet spacing guidelines of 35-feet to 40-feet per light. Existing
“cobra head” lights shall be replaced by tall decorative lights and the remaining distance shall be met with
pedestrian scale lights. Spec will be provided, however applicant shall use LED luminaire instead of
incandescent or sodium vapor.
50. Drain downspouts to landscaping or stormwater treatment area (outward from building as needed) as
opposed to connecting to storm drain line or draining onto impervious surface (Sheet C-3.0 and Sheet C-
3.1). Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
51. Refer to PWE comments regarding the drainage management areas on sheet HYD-2. Confirm with PWE if
DMA #6 is allowed to drain to the street instead of draining to stormwater treatment area or landscaping.
52. Sheet ER-1: Erosion Control Notes:
x It shall be the owner’s contractor’s responsibility to maintain control of the entire construction
operation and to keep the entire site in compliance with the erosion control plan and guidance from
City inspectors.
x Add text: “Contractor is responsible for replacing storm drain inlet protection within one business
day following a rain event if City staff removes inlet protection during a rain event. Offsite
downgrade storm drain inlets also require inlet protection.” Add this bullet to the building plans.
2.d
Packet Pg. 40
Page 19 of 26
18PLN-00096
x Sanitary facilities shall be maintained on the site at all times according to either the latest revisions
of the CASQA or Caltrans BMPs. Sanitary facilities shall include secondary containment. Add this
bullet to the building plans.
x All paved areas shall be kept clear of earth material and debris on a daily basis throughout the life of
the project… Add this bullet to the building plans.
x All materials necessary for the approved erosion control measures shall be in place throughout the
life of the project.
x Erosion control systems shall be installed and maintained throughout the life of the project.
x The contractor shall be responsible for checking and repairing erosion control systems after each
storm. The contractor is responsible for replacing storm drain inlet protection (including offsite
downgrade SD inlets) within one business day following a rain event if City staff removes inlet
protection during a rain event.
x Measures shall be taken to collect or clean any accumulation or deposit of dirt, mud, sand, rocks,
gravel, or debris on the surface of any street, alley, or public place or in any public storm drain systems
on a daily basis. The removal of…
x Erosion control measures shall be onsite throughout the life of the project.
x All erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the life of the project.
x The contractor must install all erosion and sediment control measures prior to the inception of any
work onsite and maintain the measures throughout the life of the project.
x Sediments and other materials shall not be tracked from the site by vehicle traffic. The contractor shall
install a stabilized construction entrance and exit prior to the inspection of any work onsite and
maintain it for the duration of the construction process… Only the stabilized construction entrance(s)
and exit(s) shall be utilized for vehicle traffic.
x The contractor shall protect down slope drainage courses, streams, and storm drains with gravel bags,
temporary swales, silt fences, and earth perms in conjunction of all landscaping.
x Excess or waste concrete must not be washed into the public right-of-way or any other drainage
system. Provisions shall be made to retain concrete wastes on site until they can be disposed of as
solid waste according to BMPs.
x Spills must be cleaned up immediately and disposed of in a proper manner using dry cleanup
methods. There shall also be a spill kit onsite. Spills must not be washed…
x Silt fence(s) and/or fiber roll(s) shall be installed throughout the life of the project.
Erosion Control Measures:
x The facilities shown on this plan are designed to control erosion and sediment throughout the life of
the project. Erosion control facilities shall be in place throughout the life of the project…
x Gravel bags shall be used in place of straw bales.
x Construction entrances and exits shall be installed prior to commencement of grading. All
construction traffic entering onto the paved roads or exiting must cross the stabilized construction
entrances or exits. Contractor shall maintain stabilized entrance and exit at each vehicle access point
to and from existing paved streets. Any mud or debris tracked onto public streets shall be removed
daily and as required by the governing agency.
2.d
Packet Pg. 41
Page 20 of 26
18PLN-00096
x Inlet protection shall be installed at open inlets to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain
system, including offsite downgrade storm drain inlets…
x This erosion and sediment control plan may not cover all the situations that may arise during
construction due to unanticipated field conditions. Variations and additions may be made to this plan
in the field. Changes may be required by City Inspectors or other City staff.
53. Sheet ER-2: Straw rolls shall be replaced with a different BMP according to the latest revision of either
CASQA or Caltrans BMPs.
54. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
55. Storm drain/drop inlets: Ensure all drainage from inside parking garage. Note that the parking garage must
drain to the sanitary sewer (per the City’s Muni Code). Other parking areas may discharge to the City’s
stormwater system. These separators must be maintained on a regular frequency and will be inspected
by City staff to ensure compliant.
x Inlets should also be labeled with a ‘Flows to Adobe Creek’ message.
56. Stormwater treatment measures: Clear, detailed maintenance agreement for stormwater treatment must
be drafted before occupancy approval.
x Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements.
x 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
57. Bay-friendly Guidelines must be followed: (Link: rescapeca.org)
58. 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.
x Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved.
59. Stormwater quality protection: At a minimum, follow the construction BMP sheet that must be submitted
with plans for entitlement. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan.
x Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter
the containers. Have clear maintenance plan for trash and recycling containers to not allow overflow.
PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION
60. TREE PROTECTION PERFORMANCE DEPOSIT. Prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit, the
applicant must deposit $86,711, an amount equal to 1.0 times the appraised value of protected Redwoods
#13, 14, 15, and 16 as described on the tree protection report by Kielty Arborist Services and detailed
further within the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan (TPPP). Tree appraisals were completed by City
staff on February 15, 2019. The deposit will be in the form of cash or bond acceptable to the City of Palo
Alto. The deposit will be held for a term of five years after the date of the certificate of occupancy. An
annual report will be supplied to the City of Palo Alto regarding the status of the four trees. Corrective
treatments may be required to address any change in condition. The deposit may be returned at the end
of the term or reduced by the adjusted appraised value for any trees that have declined or died. In
addition, new trees may be required to be planted on site to compensate for any decline in health or
death. Trees may be considered “dead” where the main leader has died or the canopy has declined more
than 25% (of live tissue).
2.d
Packet Pg. 42
Page 21 of 26
18PLN-00096
61. TREE PROTECTION and PRESERVATION PLAN (TPPP). TPPP has been prepared in accordance with the
guidelines in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) and outlines the measures and conditions for the
proposed project to reduce impacts to protected trees to a less than significant levels. These measures
and conditions include preconstruction and construction tree protection requirements that are to be
followed through all phases of construction of the project. The owner or contractor for the project must
follow the protection and preservation plan requirements indicated within the TPPP for development of
the project.
62. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED TREES. Existing oak and redwood trees (Protected) or street trees
(Regulated) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban
Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be
referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering.
a. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban
Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or
Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).”
b. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T-2, or specific approval
communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used
for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp
63. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility,
irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or
curb cut.
a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry
inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-
496-5953).”
b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard
Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit
dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited.
c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way
requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.”
d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least
30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on
top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch.
e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on
the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the
root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and
ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside
an aeration tube are prohibited.
64. NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY. On sheet L5.0, tree disposition, add a table showing whether the project will
result in no net loss of tree canopy. Columns must display the square footage of tree canopy for each tree
retained or removed and projected canopy size in 15 years for planted trees. Display totals for tree canopy
area before and after construction.
65. STREET TREES. The four (4) street trees on the building permit will be shown as remove and replace. A
suspended pavement system is required to create adequate soil volume for new street trees. As part of
the project submittal, the applicant will provide a Consulting Arborist review of soil and drainage tests to
2.d
Packet Pg. 43
Page 22 of 26
18PLN-00096
recommend soil remediation and drainage improvement actions to be provided or made available thru
channeling for (new and existing) trees in the public right of way areas. The City requires adequate viable
soil volume areas for healthy public trees. All imported soils shall be tested, and the results provided to
the City for approval before import. Import soil shall be amended with compost per City standards in place
of other soil amendments. Street trees require an automatic irrigation/bubbler system and may require
tree grates. Tree well openings on El Camino Real frontage shall be 4’ x 8’’ minimum per ECR Master Plan,
Tree Planting Practices Sec.5.4.2. Soil cells will be placed under the sidewalk and driveways (to the extent
possible) with a target soil volume of 1200 cubic foot for individual large stature species such as London
Plane or 900 cubic feet each for shared space for two or more trees. Reductions in volume of soil cells
may be considered because of conflicts with utilities or infrastructure.
66. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and or contractor shall implement all protection and
inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in
the TPPP & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required
protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. The owner
and or contractor must first receive approval by City Arborist for any activities occurring within a tree
protection zone (TPZ) of protected trees including, but not limited to construction and landscaping as
indicated within the TPPP. Tree condition, notable construction activities, and treatments shall be
documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist
Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial
verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff
review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building
permit plan set submittal and, (b) verified all TPPP mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in
the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting
have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design
revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior
to approval from City.
71. 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.
72. 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
2.d
Packet Pg. 44
Page 23 of 26
18PLN-00096
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.
BUILDING DIVISION
73. A site-specific soils report will be required to be submitted for the building construction permit.
74. For the valet parking space in the basement garage, the access aisle serving them and a vehicular route
from the entrance shall provide a vertical clearance of 114 inches minimum. (CBC 11B-503.5)
75. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those
written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this
review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written
description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not,
unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed.
GREEN BUILDING
76. Green Building Requirements for Non-Residential Projects. For design and construction of non-
residential projects, the City requires compliance with the mandatory measures of Chapter 5, in addition
to use of the Voluntary Tiers. (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The following are required for Building Approval:
77. The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore
must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as
applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 6.14.180 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall
indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp.
78. The project is a new building over 10,000 square feet and therefore must meet the commissioning
requirements outlined in the California Energy Code section. The project team shall submit the Owner’s
Project Requirements (OPR), and Basis of Design (BOD), and Commissioning Plan in accordance with
5.410.2.3.
79. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an
Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has
been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The Energy Star Project
Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found
at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp.
80. The project is a nonresidential new construction projects with a landscape of any size included in the
project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2. Documentation is required
to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water
Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the
prescribed potable water reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.220 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project
applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined on
the following site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape.asp.
81. The project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square
feet and therefore must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord.
5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans.
82. The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet
and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC
16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit
2.d
Packet Pg. 45
Page 24 of 26
18PLN-00096
Plans.
83. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and installed to
prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto
adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord.
5220 § 1 (part), 2013).
84. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled
between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system
outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied
water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the
potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant
shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans.
85. The project is a nonresidential new construction project and has a value exceeding $25,000 and
therefore must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5220 § 1
(part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements.
86. The project includes non-residential demolition and therefore must meet the Enhanced Construction
Waste Reduction - Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.270 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green
Halo System to document the requirements.
87. The project is a new non-residential structure and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto
Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. The project 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. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See
Ordinance 5263 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC
16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details.
The following are required at Post-Construction after 12 months of occupancy.
88. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an
Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has
been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). Submittal info can be found
at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp.
Utilities WGW
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT:
89. Remove the set-back of exterior wall at gas meter location; the gas meter location shall not exceed 2 walls
on each side of the meter per CPAU 2013 WGW Standards, Section 2685, 3.09, A, 3. Gas meter location is
to meet WGW standards, to be on the building structure, outside of the building footprint, and
maintaining minimum possible gas service length into the property.
90. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet
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, fire system load in gpm, and sewer in fixture
units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads.
91. 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.
92. 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,
2.d
Packet Pg. 46
Page 25 of 26
18PLN-00096
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.
93. 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.
94. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements.
95. Installations parallel to new or existing WGW utilities to remain shall maintain 5ft minimum horizontal
separation, unless specificed otherwise by WGW Engineering. Crossings shall maintain miminum of 1 ft
clear of any obstruction to WGW utilities.
96. 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 with required drainage.
97. 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 with required drainage.
98. 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.
99. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans.
100. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per
WGW utilities procedures.
101. 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.
102. 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 .
2.d
Packet Pg. 47
G
A?BC ! "# #( &# (
>E
7===FC
"-#$$
?>= (&(
# (#/ #&" FA@=>
-?=?=
"* &#"!"(
!$($#&(#&( A?BC ! "# #( &# ( "( '( ! ( ( #"!')&'( (+
!$ !"((#&)( !$('''# (+ ( ( $&# (1 #&" "* &#"!"( ) (-(9:+'
!" ">FEF(#( #"?>=E>1C/+ &%) &'$) "-(##$(!#" (#& ""&$#&( "$&#&!#&
'''' """')& "#!$ "+ ( "-&%) &! ( ( #"!')&'$$ (#$&#$#'* #$!"(1''(( "
'( #"?>=E>1C9:9>:#( ) '#)&'#/3111( $) "-' #$(&$#&( "#&!#" (#& "$&#&!
#&( "'!(#( $&# (#&#" ( #"'#$&# ($$&#* /#$( "#&&(#! ( (#&*# ' " "(
('#"( "* &#"!"(14
( #"?>=E>1C '#$&#* '"& ) "'#& !$ !"( "! ( ( #"!#" (#& "$&#&!'" " ('( (
'$ &$#&( ""5#&!#" (#& "&%) &!"('/(#"#&)& "$&# ( !$ !"(( #"/' "'$&(
##$( """* &#"!"(
!$($#&(9
:1
! ( ( #"!#" (#& "( '('( #'! ( ( #"!')&'( (+#) " )'#" ( #"'#$$&#* #&(
$&# (1#"')&( (( ! ( ( #"!')&'&$&#$& - !$ !"(/!#" (#& "$&#&! '"* '+
"( '( ( ! ""&'$#"' (-#&!#" (#& " !')&1
2.d
Packet Pg. 48
(-# # (# ( ( #" #" (#& "G$#&( "&#&!6?
") %#"!"' !$' ' ' #" &(%&$#"& #%
!$ !"'' #"
! " #
#!$ "
)%& '#
!$ !"'' #"
03,
&' " %
(%)+&"
)# "
#"'(&)( #"#( $&# (' $&# ()& "( "& * ""'( "
''#"9&)&->8))'(@>:/ ' 1
"'( "''#"*# " '"#(
' /( $$ "(' &( "%) # # '(/'$$&#*-( (-
# # (#/(##")($&#"'(&)( #""'( " &')&*-##"7' ("
"((&'(#(&! "( $&'"5'"/ #( #"/"( * (-'(()'
#"-( *"'('1 %) # # '(' '( ' ( ,("(#(
')&*-)&&')&&#)" "( ' ((#"')&( ( &(" " &(
('(#"'( " &'&*# 1#*# ( '(&)( #"#( *"'('
"(#$&#((( &$&#)( *')''# &'$&#((-( &(#&-
&&(-(9 :" #&" ' "!#9:/"'( " &
')&*-'' $&#&!"#(!#&( ">A-'$& #&(#' )
*(( #" &""'(&)()&!# ( #"1
"( *"(( (( *"'('
& '#*&/') ( )&9(-$ -! " !)!#B=(#&$''& "'
"! " !)!#?B=(#&&$(#&':' '( ' &#)"') ( *
"'('""##"'(&)( #"' #++ ( "( )&&')"(
%) # # '( '(&! "( (( "'( '"# #"&( *9 11/(
"'( "' * ""# #"&& -#"( "'(:1
#&#)" '()& "
( * ( '' #)&+ ( "( ')&)"( ( %) # # '( '
#" &!( (& "5"'( " '#!$ ("( -#)" * (
"'(1
'( " &')&*-'&"#(&%) &#&#"'(&)( #"( * ( '#)&& "
(+"))'(@>"&)&->1
$$ "(#&' "5
#"'(&)( #"
#"(&(#&
& #&(#"
)& "
#"'(&)( #"
"" "
$&(!"(
04,%%#'' #"
"%&%)' #" "-
$&#(( *!')&''& #"$'>A( &#) >D#( &
&#(( #""&'&*( #" "9 "#"#"') ("('?=>E/$$" ,:'
"#&$#&( "(#( $&# ( " ) "$&#"'(&)( #"!')&'9') '
$&#(( *" ":/)& "7#"'(&)( #"!')&'9') '*# "#'#
#!$( #":/"! "(""( * ( '9') '! "( " ""#&!
&& ( #":1
$$ "(#&' "5
#"'(&)( #"
#"(&(#&
& #&(#"
)& "
#"'(&)( #"
"" "
$&(!"(
03,#% %.&
") %#"!"'
*%"&&%# %!
12
%) & # # '(' &( "+ #!('( &(&-#(
"(& #&2'&#'' #" ) ( #"'("&'#&& # #-(##")(
(& " "#&& # # '"' ( * (-#& #"'(&)( #"$&'#"" $& #&
(#( #!!"!"(#&#)" '()& "( * ( '1& # #
'"' ( * (-(& " "' #) " )'& $( #"#( (-$'#) ()&
&'#)&'( (!-"#)"(&/) ()& '"' ( * (- '')'/&) (#&-
'')'/"( $&#$&$&#(## #&(&(!"(#( !(& ' "( *"(#
"1
$$ "(#&' "5
#"'(&)( #"
#"(&(#&
)& "
#"'(&)( #"
"" "
$&(!"(
2.d
Packet Pg. 49
(-# # (# ( ( #" #" (#& "G$#&( "&#&!6@
") %#"!"' !$' ' ' #" &(%&$#"& #%
!$ !"'' #"
! " #
#!$ "
)%& '#
!$ !"'' #"
04,&#(%
#)%+%#(%&-
"( *"(( (& # # &'#)&'&)"&( )& "$&# (
#"'(&)( #"/ &( 7 '()& "+#& "&( "!)'((!$#&& -
')'$"#&& &()"( "& # # '( '* )(( "()&"
' " "#( "1
( '#*&-$&#*'(#' " "()"&/
( #" +#& /') '$&'&*( #" "$ #&& # # (&#*&-/
' #)&'&%) &-( & # # '( "##& "( #"+ ( (-'("
'""('"5#&'( # &&#)$'/'+&&"(1"( &'#)& '
"$&#$& -(&(#&$&#((/+#& "( &!-&')!1
( *
!& "&$&'"(( *' &( "(#!#" (#&! ( ( #"+#&
''# (+ (
( *!& ") ()& !(& 1
$$ "(#&
' "5#"'(&)( #"
#"(&(#&
)& "
#"'(&)( #"
"" "
$&(!"(
05,""' $'
&#)%+%#(%&
"( *"(( () ()& &'#)&'#
( *!& "#& "& "(
)& "#"'(&)( #"/( $$ "(' #"((( (-1 (-' # #+
$&#)&'(#! ')&$$&#$& (!#" (#& " '( "$ "
$$&#$& (&#)$'&#"((/ " ) "#"') ( "+ ( %)
& # # '(" "" "#&#"( ") "
( *!& "#"') (( #"
$&#)&'1
( (-(&! "'( &'#)& '(& ) ()& &'#)&"
( )'' " "()"&/! ( ( #"$ "' $&$&"
!$ !"( "#&"+ ( '(() "'" "#"') (( #"+ (
( *!& "&#)$'1 $ "+#) " )*# "#( &'#)&#&/
*# "#( &'#)& ' "' /( $ "+#) #)( "(
$$&#$& ((&(!"(#( &'#)& "##& "( #"+ ( ( & # # '(
"( $$&#$& (
( *!& "(& &$&'"(( *1
$$ "(#&
' "5#"'(&)( #"
#"(&(#&
)& "
#"'(&)( #"
"" "
$&(!"(
03,#' "
& "#"& %' #"&
?=>E#( " "*'( ( #"#")(-#&"&'(#"&( &#)$
#"( "'#!$& "' *' "&#!!"( #"'#&( $&# (/'+ '
&#!!"( #"'#&( #"'(&)( #"#"(&(#&1' &#!!"( #"'
#&"%) * "( (&"( *' "!')&&#!!"-%)
" "&"$$&#*-( ) " ' "#&$#&( "(#
( $&#$#'$&# (& "") "$ "'1 ')&'(# "#&$#&(
"(#( $&# ($ "'$& #&(#$&# (#"'(&)( #" " )/)(&"#( ! (
(#0
i & #&(#')! (( "$&# (& "") "$ "'#& (-&* +/
%) #( " #"') ("(' &( "(#&* +(
#( " '$('#( $&# ('(&)()& / * /" "'$$ "'
"'$ ( #"'/ #+ "') "(( !(#$&#* ( ' "(!
+ ( #!!"('1
i %) #( " #"') ("(' "#( ( '(AE #)&'$& #&
(#&( +#& "#"'(&)( #"( * ( '"$&'"(#"' ((#$&#*
#( " #'&*( #""('( ")& "&( +#& "#)"( #"
#"'(&)( #"1 %) #( " #"') ("(' $&#* ((&
(#( ) " (( "##"'(&)( #"/#)( " "
$$ "(#&' " & #&(#
) "
$&! (
"" "
$&(!"(
2.d
Packet Pg. 50
(-# # (# ( ( #" #" (#& "G$#&( "&#&!6A
") %#"!"' !$' ' ' #" &(%&$#"& #%
!$ !"'' #"
! " #
#!$ "
)%& '#
!$ !"'' #"
#"(&(#&#!$ "+ ( $&# ($ "'/'$ ( #"'/" &"
(#$&# (! ( ( #"!')&'1
i &#)"+(& "& ($ (,*( #"0
i & '($ (+ ' +(&$&##/"( $ (#)"( #""
+ '' ' "(# " )#"'(&)( #" # "('( (&
&' '("((# -&#'(( $&'')&1
i &#)"+(& * #>D( #+( , '( "&#)"')& "
'(&)()&' "' )' "' " "( & ($ (1
i #"'(&)( #"#"(&(#&' $&#* #"'(&)( #"+(& "
$ "(#( #"'(&)( #"!#" (#&$& #&(##!!" "$ (
,*( #"+#& )& "$&# (#"'(&)( #"1 +(& "$ "
' ! "( "&#)"+(&( '( *( #+( #((#!#
( !'',*( #"/"( '((+#( #+ # .
,*( #"'') '$"##( "'/ (' ('/")( ( '1
i &#, ! (-(#&,*( #"(#, '( " !$&#*!"('0!$#&&-
' #& "(#')$$#&(( $&#$#'>E7(#?C7##($,*( #" "(
(#A?B="A?C= ! "# 9 "($&#$&( '(#( "#&( +'(
"'#)( '(/&'$( * -:"' #& "#&( '!"(+ '"&
! "# "( $&#$&(-(#( '#)( +'(' !$ !"(
)& "$&# (#"'(&)( #"(#$&'&*( '(&)()& "# #
"(& (-# "() "')& "$&# (,*( #"( * ( '1
i &"( !#*!"(&#!#"7&(##"7'(&)()&(&"' ( #"'0
i )' '' " )"( (+#& #&$*&'( ("
"( *&( '(( &(-#"( )"&&#)"&( " "
+ 1
i ( " "+ ' #!$((#FB$&"(+ &
')& !$&#*!"('&$ ""1
i &'"#,$"' *')& '# 0
i (7&')& !$&#*!"('#)(' ( '!"(##($& "(
' ' "(#&' '(,$"' *'# '1
i (+#& 911/' + '"$( #':' *') "(
& "#&!"("')$$#&(#" -&#"#"7,$"' * 1
i (7&##( "'' ,(" #+( .#"#''#" !# '()&
)()( #"1
i # '()& "' "( ')& '# '' ! (-)' "
$#' ( *& "+-&#!) "''+ ' ! ( "
"'$ "+(& "1
i &'"## ' #" ''9'"-:'# ('!"( * 0#"(&(#&'
' #&!##( "'+ &'"+ ( #+ "')'(&('&
"#)"(&/"$&$&' 7#"7&')& )'($& #&(#
#"&($ !"(1
2.d
Packet Pg. 51
(-# # (# ( ( #" #" (#& "G$#&( "&#&!6B
") %#"!"' !$' ' ' #" &(%&$#"& #%
!$ !"'' #"
! " #
#!$ "
)%& '#
!$ !"'' #"
03,#"&'%(' #"0
'
# &
(' #" &(%&-
$$ "(' $$ -( # #+ "!')&')& "#"'(&)( #"#(
$&# (1
i ) &'1#"'(&)( #"%) $!"(' $&#$& -! "( ""
"(&" #!)'( #"" "& *"! "&-+ ( "( ", )'(
!) &'"" "' &#)'/'$$ /' "###" ( #""
$$&#$& (#&( %) $!"(1)& "#"'(&)( #"/ %) $!"(/ ,
#&!# /' #$&(+ ( #'" "##&'"'
%) $$+ ( $&#$& -#$&( ""! "( "!) &'/#"' '("(
+ ( !")()&&'2'("&'1
i (& #+&1 (& $#+&/&( &( " ' %) $!"(/'
)'(#&)"#!$&''#&'"' ! &$#+&(## '"(#$#+&(!$#&&-
'(&)()&'/') '#"'(&)( #"(& &'#&&( & ( '1
i %) $!"(( "1 '(( #"&-%) $!"(911/ &#!$&''#&'/
$#&( "&(#&':' '('&+-&#!'"' ( *&$(#&'
'' 1 &' /#"'(&)((!$#&&-"# '&& &'&#)"
'(( #"&-%) $!"( "!""&( () - # '( "#' ((#
&' "( + "#+' "( "($&(!"(#!$ ,1
i %) $!"(
"1#"'(&)( #"* '"%) $!"(' "#( (
"#& #"&( " *! ")('+ ""#( ")'1
i #& &'2 #'1 "# '&#!+#& &'2& #'' #"(&# (#
$# "(( (( -&"#() ('"' ( *&$(#&'"&#"'(&)( #"
( * (-1
i !&( 7)$ &!'1 # #"'(&)( #"%) $!"(' *'!&(
7)$ &!'( ()(#!( - )'(( '#)" * #( &! "
&'$#"'(#! "("# ' * '1 (&"( * -/ 7)$ &!''
' "&$ + ( )!"'$#((&'(#"')&'(-+ "!#
#"'(&)( #"%) $!"( '!#* " "( &*&' &( #"1
i #)"&& &1)& "( !# ( #"/' ($&$&( #"/& "/"
) "$ ''##"'(&)( #"/(!$#&&-'#)"&& &' ('((#
&)"# '-( '(>B' "'( "! "( " "
( "(&' "( )" ('1!$#&&-'#)"&& &'' # "#
' ((+""# '7"&( "#"'(&)( #"%) $!"(" "(
&' "( + "#+'"' $ ' #'(#( '#)&%) $!"(
'' 1 # '#)"&& &'!-)''$$&#$& ((#
((")(#"'(&)( #""# '"&( '#)&%) $!"(1)& "(
) "#"'(&)( #"$ '/(!$#&&-'#)"&& &'' $$ (#
"&(#&'"&"')'#"7' (1 '()&"##& "(#&1
$$ "(' ' "( '()&"##& "(#&+ #'
#"'(&)( #"
#"(&(#&
)& "
#"'(&)( #"
"" "
$&(!"(
2.d
Packet Pg. 52
(-# # (# ( ( #" #" (#& "G$#&( "&#&!6C
") %#"!"' !$' ' ' #" &(%&$#"& #%
!$ !"'' #"
! " #
#!$ "
)%& '#
!$ !"'' #"
&'$#"' #&&'$#" "(#"- # #!$ "('#)(#"'(&)( #"
"# '1 "# ' '()&"##& "(#&' (&! "( )'#(
"# '#!$ "(911/'(&( "(##& -/!) &:"' &%) &
( (&'#" !')&'+&&"((##&&(( $&# !
!$ !"(1( $ #"")!&#&( '()&"##& "(#&'
#"'$ )#)' -$#'((( #"'(&)( #"' (1
/
7>0 (''"
&) ( #"
#"' &( #"'1
# #+ "!')&'' "#&$#&( "(#( $&# ($ "'0
i #"*,! &&#&'' $ (( #((#!#( &!$#+"(#(
&(#'' '(& *&'+ ( ( ' &$()&"- #+ "* '# ")$
#&#+"( &!$(#' #( &&#)"( ()&"1
i )&' $ "((+"( (+#$&# (& *+-'(#$&# (
#"7'(&($& """')&%)(' ( '("&#!#( $&# (
& *+-'1
$$ "(#&' " & #&(#
) "
$&! (
"" "
$&(!"(
2.d
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment E
Draft Conditions of Approval
Parking Revisions to 4256 El Camino Real
21PLN-00034
The Following Conditions of Approval only pertain to the proposed parking revisions changing the
approved hotel project’s (18PLN-00096) parking facility design from a two-level parking garage to a
single-level parking garage. These Conditions of Approval only change the previously approved projects
(18PLN-00096) Conditions of Approval to account for the parking facility design change, Director’s
Parking Adjustment, and TDM plan. All other Conditions of Approval found in 18PLN-00096, and as
required by the approved EIR, remain effective for the project.
PLANNING DIVISION
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans
entitled, "ArtX Hotel HXH PROPERTY, LCC,” stamped as received by the City on March 10, 2021, on file
with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these
conditions of approval.
2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire,
Public Works, and Building Departments.
3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval
for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for the building permit.
4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and
approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project
is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning
Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s
responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s
attention.
5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the
original date of approval if, within such two-year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction
of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or
approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration.
(PAMC 18.77.090(a))
6. AMENDMENT TO DIRECTOR’S PARKING ADJUSTMENT. The proposal includes a request for a Director’s
adjustment to the minimum parking requirement for the site of 96 parking spaces. The adjustment
results in the net reduction of 14 parking spaces, for a total of 72 standard/lift parking spaces. While
valet parking spaces applied towards the required minimum, the project will provide an additional 5
parking spaces via valet aisle parking, bringing the project to a total of 77 parking spaces. Noting that
PAMC 18.52.040(b)(8) requires accessible parking spaces count as at least two standard automobile
parking spaces for the purposes of the parking required for the site. In accordance with PAMC
18.52.050, a Director’s Adjustment of 15% of the total parking requirement is approved in accordance
with the approved Revised Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan dated received April 29,
2021. No changes to the prior adjustment Director’s adjustment allowing a reduction in the required
2.e
Packet Pg. 54
dimensions for an off-street loading area. This adjustment reduced the loading area to a size suited for a
SU-30 truck type and is retained for the project.
7. MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING SYSTEM. Up to 59 of the required 77 parking spaces are approved to be
provided in a mechanical lift parking system, which allows independent access to each vehicle. The
property owner and/or hotelier shall have a maintenance agreement with the lift system manufacturer
to ensure the system shall be operational at all times. If the lift system is out of operation for any
reason, anyone who is not able to retrieve their vehicle within a 15-minute period shall be reimbursed
by the property owner or their designee for travel expenses up to $50 per occurrence.
8. VALET PARKING. The valet drop-off area shall be located on the basement level. Valet parking services
shall be provided at all times (24 hours a day) on-site to ensure queuing of cars is kept to a minimum
and that efficient use of the mechanical parking lifts is achieved. To the satisfaction of the Director,
signage shall be posted informing visitors that valet parking is required and that anyone who is not able
to retrieve their vehicle within a 15-minute period due to parking lift malfunction, are to be reimbursed
for travel expenses up to $50 per occurrence.
9. TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT: The applicant shall abide by the Final
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “Analog Hotel Parking & Transportation
Demand Management Plan (TDM), received April 29, 2021”, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Development Services. The TDM plan includes measures and programs to achieve a
reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 30%, in conformance with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document mode split
and trips to the project site. The TDM annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation
Official. Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction
is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve
the required reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule.
10. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (Palo Alto TMA). The subject site has the option to
participate in the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (http://www.paloaltotma.org/) or
any successor Transportation Management Association/Program that is designed to reduce commute
trips to and from the City of Palo Alto as indicated in the approved TDM program to achieve the
required trip reductions. The property owner shall ensure this condition is included in all lease
agreements in order to streamline implementation.
11. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES. The property owner shall work with transportation
network companies (TNCs, i.e. LYFT/Uber) to encourage them to drop-off and pick-up customers from
the hotel’s porte cochere, and avoid such activities along El Camino Real.
12. NO PARKING/NO STOPPING LOCATIONS. The project frontage along El Camino Real shall be posted
as no parking/stopping with the curb between the projects Porte-Cochere painted red to ensure free
flow of traffic in this area.
13. NO QUEING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. No queing shall be allowed on the public right-of-way. All
loading/unloading shall take place on-site.
2.e
Packet Pg. 55
14. 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.
15. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial
compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions
during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials,
landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at
samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection.
2.e
Packet Pg. 56
Draft Memorandum
Date: April 13, 2021
To: Mr. Samuel J. Gutierrez, City of Palo Alto
From: Gary Black
Selvi Sivaraj
Subject: Additional Memo for Parking and Circulation Analysis for the Proposed Hotel at 4256
El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. completed a transportation study for the proposed hotel
development at 4256 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California. As proposed, the project would
construct a hotel with 96 rooms by replacing the existing restaurant on the project site. Hexagon
prepared a transportation study for the project in May of 2020 including an analysis of on-site
circulation and parking. This memorandum evaluates and documents the on-site circulation and
parking operations of the revised site plan dated October 29, 2020.
Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on El Camino Real. The
northern driveway would be for inbound traffic only including drop-offs and deliveries under the
Porte-Cochere. The southern driveway would be for outbound only traffic. Both the driveways would
connect to the underground parking garage. Parking for hotel registration is intended to occur in the
basement parking garage.
On-Site Circulation
All parking for the hotel would be valet only; self-parking would not be provided. Guests could enter
the site from northern driveway and use the garage ramp to drop off their vehicles at the valet
parking station in the basement. Valets would move the vehicles from the valet station into the
parking spaces. When the owner returns to retrieve their vehicle, the valet team would drive it back
to the valet station in the basement. The vehicles would exit the hotel through the exit-only southern
driveway. The width of the driveway is shown to be 18 feet wide, which meets the City’s minimum
(12 feet) and maximum (20 feet) width requirement for a one-way driveway.
On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Zoning Code
and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. On-site parking would be provided in a
basement parking garage including standard parking stalls and parking lifts (see Figure 1). The
project would provide 90-degree parking stalls in the underground garage. The City’s standard
minimum width for two-way drive aisles is 25 feet wide where 90-degree parking is provided. This
allows sufficient room for vehicles to back out of the parking spaces. According to the site plan, the
two-way drive aisles with parking available on either side measure 25 feet wide throughout the
garage. Thus, adequate access to all parking stalls would be provided.
Per the City’s Zoning Code, garage ramps are to have no greater than a 22 percent slope with
transition grades of 11 percent over a minimum length of 10 feet and a minimum width of 18 feet for
a two-way ramp. The project site plan shows a slope of approximately 22 percent for the 20-foot
wide garage driveway ramp, with transition grades of 11 percent. Therefore, the proposed slope of
2.f
Packet Pg. 57
4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto – Site Circulation and Parking Analysis Memo April 13, 2021
Page | 2
the garage ramp adheres to the standards as specified in the Palo Alto Zoning Code. It should be
noted that although the ramp would be adequate for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists are not
expected to be using the ramp given that the slope’s grade would be too difficult for pedestrians and
bicyclists to traverse.
Parking Garage Circulation
Access to the underground parking garage would be provided via a ramp located along the
southern edge of the project site. The site plan shows one dead-end drive aisle at the terminus of
the east-west drive aisle (see Figure 1). However, the dead-end aisle is not expected to be
problematic given that parking would be completed by valets, and the drive aisles are very short.
In the parking garage, 59 parking spaces would be provided in three level puzzle lifts. Except when
full, the puzzle lifts present an open parking stall that, once occupied, would automatically shift
downward or rotate, presenting another open stall. This system automatically shifts vehicles to
allow retrieval without the need to move other vehicles.
The parking garage was also reviewed for vehicle access using vehicle turning-movement
templates. Analysis using the appropriate turning templates shows that the driveway aisle, ramp,
and turning space from the ramp to the drive aisle could accommodate two vehicles traveling in the
opposite direction at the same time (see Figure 1). Hexagon recommends the project install convex
mirrors at the bottom of the ramp to allow vehicles going up or down the ramp to see each other
around the turn for additional safety.
Pedestrian access between the garage and the hotel lobby would be provided via elevators and
stairways located within the garage. The elevators and stairways would provide direct access to
either the building’s main lobby or to an exit corridor and would be located along the western edge
and at the center of the garage.
Parking Stall Dimensions
According to the project site plan, the project proposes standard-sized (8.5 feet wide by 18 feet
long) stalls, which meet the City’s off-street parking design standard. Van accessibility would be
provided at one of the ADA accessible stalls.
The City of Palo Alto Zoning Code states that mechanical-stack parking systems must at least
accommodate full-size cars as well as mid-size sport utility vehicles. The project as proposed would
include the use of the CityLift Model No. 3LP puzzle stacker system in the parking structure, which
would consist of standard-size (8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long) parking stall dimensions and a height
of about 6 feet and 6 inches. This vehicle clearance would be adequate for almost all passenger
cars and trucks as well as mid-sized SUVs. Therefore, the proposed mechanical-stack parking
system would comply with the City’s Zoning Code. The site plan also shows 18 non-lift stalls that
could accommodate taller vehicles.
Truck Access and Circulation
As proposed, the hotel building would comprise a total of 51,864 square feet gross floor area. In
accordance with the City’s Zoning Code (Section 18.52.040), a hotel building with a gross floor area
between 10,000 square feet and 99,999 square feet is required to provide a minimum of one off-
street loading/unloading space to serve deliveries. Truck activities for the project are not expected
to occur within the garage due to height limitations. The required loading space is shown within the
Porte-cochere drop-off/pick-up area, adjacent to the building entrance.
2.f
Packet Pg. 58
4256 El Camino Real
Figure 1
Passenger Car Turning Template (Inbound and Outbound Vehicles)
Drop
Off
Zone
Pick
Up
Zone
2.f
Packet Pg. 59
4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto – Site Circulation and Parking Analysis Memo April 13, 2021
Page | 4
Traffic Operations at Porte-cochere
The northern driveway which connects to Porte-cochere would be for inbound traffic only and is
intended to accommodate drop-offs and deliveries. The width of the driveway is shown to be 22 feet
wide, which meets the City’s minimum width requirement of 20 feet. Parking for hotel registration is
intended to occur in the basement parking garage. The Porte-cochere area was reviewed for truck
access using truck turning-movement templates for a SU-30 truck type, which represents small
emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, and small to medium delivery trucks. The analysis showed
that the Porte-cochere could accommodate trucks of this type. There are two lanes and
approximately 50 feet of storage (room for 4 vehicles) available at the inbound driveway, which
would be adequate for inbound drop-offs and deliveries within the project site.
Appropriate wayfinding signs are shown on the site plan at the project driveways and parking
garage entrance to direct drop-off traffic and guests seeking to check-in. Guests checking in or
returning to the hotel would drive into the garage to the valet kiosk.
Traffic Operations at Valet Station
Guests would enter the site through the northern driveway and would use the ramp into the garage
to get to the valet station. Valets would move the vehicles from the valet station into the parking
stalls. When the owner returns to retrieve their vehicle, the valet team would drive it back to the
valet station in the basement.
The peak hour trips generated by the hotel are estimated to be 21 inbound trips and 15 outbound
trips during the AM peak hour, and 22 inbound trips and 19 outbound trips during the PM peak
hour, which is one inbound vehicle every three minutes and one outbound vehicle every three
minutes during the AM and PM peak hours (see Table 1). The proposed valet station has one
parking space. Based on the mechanical lifts’ specification (CityLift -Puzzle model), the average
retrieval time for a two to five level parking lift is 30 to 90 seconds. Retrieving a vehicle from the first
floor takes only a few seconds, from the second floor takes 30 seconds, and from the third floor
takes 50 seconds on average. Parked cars in the aisle, which could occur under peak occupancy
conditions, would affect the parking and retrieval time for some of the lifts but not for all of them.
Hexagon assumes it would take a minimum of 20 seconds and a maximum of 40 seconds to clear
the aisle parking and drive to the valet zone. Therefore, it would take a minimum of 20 seconds to a
maximum of 90 seconds for each drop off and pick up. The maximum time of 90 seconds would be
required only for the 8 third floor lift spaces parallel to the aisle. Considering the hotel would
generate an average of one inbound trip every three minutes and one outbound trips every three
minutes during the peak hours and retrieval time varying from 20 to 90 seconds on average to
operate, there would not be any queuing issues or spill over onto the garage ramp. There is also
queuing space of 25 feet available between the valet station and ramp for one additional car for
inbound vehicles. In the event there is a vehicle waiting at the valet station for drop off, there is
ample space available for vehicle pick up (see Figure 1). During guest check-in and check-out there
will also be the need to unload and load luggage. Valets should assist guests in loading and
unloading luggage to minimize vehicle queuing near the valet station. Assuming the
unloading/loading takes 5 minutes, there would be the occasional queue of up to two vehicles
inside the garage. There would be enough queuing space inside the garage to accommodate this
queue. Hexagon recommends that the valets prioritize parking cars in the parking lifts. Aisle parking
should only be used when the lifts are full. Also, valets should move cars from the aisle parking into
the lifts whenever possible to keep the aisle parking clear and minimize retrieval time.
2.f
Packet Pg. 60
4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto – Site Circulation and Parking Analysis Memo April 13, 2021
Page | 5
Table 1
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Proposed Use
Boutique Hotel 1 96 rooms 8.17 784 0.53 30 21 51 0.60 31 27 58
TDM Program (30%)###(235)(9)(6)(15)(9)(8)(17)
Subtotal 549 21 15 36 22 19 41
Existing Use
Su Hong Eatery Restaurant 2 3.30 ksf 89.95 (297)---7.49 (17)(8)(25)
Total New Project Trips 252 21 15 36 5 11 16
Notes:
KSF = 1,000 square feet
1 Hotel (Land Use 310) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.
2 Quality Restaurant (Land Use 931) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.
3
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size
In accordance with the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the project site is located within the El Camino Real
Corridor, thus a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required to reduce vehicle trips
by at least 30 percent.
Parking Analysis
The City of Palo Alto Parking Code (Section 18.52.040) states that hotel uses are to provide 1.0
parking space per guestroom plus the applicable requirement for eating and drinking, banquet,
assembly, commercial or other uses, less up to 75% of the spaces required for guestrooms. Given
that the included business center and restaurant would only serve as ancillary uses to the hotel, the
project as proposed is required to provide a minimum parking of 96 spaces based on the proposed
96 guest rooms. Up to a 20 percent parking reduction may be granted by the Planning Director with
implementation of a TDM Plan. Accounting for the TDM reduction, the project is required to provide
77 parking spaces.
For non-residential projects with mechanical-stack parking systems, the City of Palo Alto Zoning
Code requires a minimum of two spaces or 10 percent of the total parking spaces provided
(whichever is greater) be non-mechanical parking spaces. The required accessible spaces shall not
be counted as one of the standard spaces for this requirement. Thus, of the required 77 spaces
(with TDM reduction), at least 8 spaces are to be standard non-mechanical parking spaces,
excluding accessible parking spaces. Based on the project site plan, the parking garage would
provide a total of 77 parking spaces consisting of eight non-mechanical parking spaces, five
accessible parking spaces, five aisle parking spaces and 59 mechanical-stack parking spaces.
Given that the project proposes a parking reduction, a TDM Plan is required. Projects located within
the El Camino Real Corridor providing a TDM Plan have a minimum trip reduction target of 30
percent, per the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Palo Alto Parking Code allows up to a 20
percent parking reduction for transportation and parking alternatives via a TDM plan. Thus, the
requested 15 percent reduction would comply with the City code.
Per the California Building Code (CBC) Table 11B-208.2, four (4) ADA accessible spaces are
required for projects with 76 to 100 parking spaces. Of the required accessible parking spaces, one
van accessible space is required. The plans show a total of five (5) accessible spaces located
within the garage. Of the ADA accessible spaces, one (1) is shown to be van accessible. Thus, the
2.f
Packet Pg. 61
4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto – Site Circulation and Parking Analysis Memo April 13, 2021
Page | 6
project adheres to the CBC accessible parking provisions. In addition, the project proposes to
include shuttle parking in the basement garage.
Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) Spaces
Per City of Palo Alto Zoning Code Chapter 16.14 (A4.106.8.3), the project is required to provide
EVSE-ready spaces for at least 30% of all hotel parking spaces, among which at least 10% shall be
installed with EVSE. Thus, the project is required to ensure 23 parking spaces are EVSE-ready, of
which 8 spaces should be installed with EVSE. The project currently proposes 16 EVSE-ready and
nine EVSE-installed spaces, for a total of 25 EV spaces.
Based on the 2016 California Building Code (Table 11B-228.3.2.1), parking facilities that provide 5
to 25 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) are required to provide one van accessible Electric
Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) and one standard accessible Electric Vehicle Charging Station
(EVCS). As per the proposed site plan, the project is planning to provide two EVCS at the standard
accessible parking spaces. The project should include one EVCS at a van accessible space to
meet the code requirement.
Bicycle Parking
The City’s municipal code requires a minimum bike parking supply of one space per 10
guestrooms, with all spaces being short-term stalls. Therefore, the project as proposed is required
to provide a minimum of 10 bicycle spaces. The project is proposing to provide six bike racks
adjacent to the building entrance and four bike racks in the Courtyard. Thus, the project as
proposed would conform to the City’s Bicycle Parking Code. In addition, the project is planning to
provide six secure long term bicycle parking spaces under the basement ramp for employees or
guests.
2.f
Packet Pg. 62
P a g e | 1 of 2
11 March 2021
Jonathan Lait
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: 21PLN-00034, 4256 El Camino Real, ArtX Hotel
Director Lait:
As directed, we have submitted documentation supporting our request to the Architectural
Review Board for clarification of the previously granted Director’s Decision for a 15% Parking
Reduction as part of the approved entitlements for the planned improvements at 4256 El
Camino Real. While earlier plans provided parking exceeding the requirement, we have now
proposed a revision to simply meet what we interpret the requirement to be. The revision to the
parking design as proposed provides benefits to both the development team and others
impacted in terms of cost, efficiency of construction, reduced excavation, reduced subsurface
water management, and better material usage.
As a component of our entitlement approval, we have committed to a full-time valet operation.
Through that program, all parking will be managed by valet staff with the rare exception of an
accessible vehicle requiring specific knowledge for operation. The variety of spaces we have
provided include a combination of stalls, mechanical lifts, accessible spaces, EVCS spaces,
and as is typical with any valet operation, the use of available space in the drive aisles. The
valet staff will manage the placement and delivery of vehicles for guests and visitors in an
efficient manner consistent with the elevated level of service the Hotel is targeting.
We understand the parking requirement to be the following:
1 SPACE/GUEST ROOM x 96 ROOMS 96 SPACES
REDUCTION FOR ADA/EVCS * -5 SPACES
SUBTOTAL 91 SPACES
15% PARKING REDUCTION GRANTED BY DIRECTOR -14 SPACES
TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 77 SPACES
* PAMC 18.52.040 ADA SPACES
CA AB1100, SECTION 22511.2 EVSE SPACES
2.g
Packet Pg. 63
P a g e | 2 of 2
In response, our revised parking layout includes the following:
PARKING PROVIDED (100% 24/7 VALET)
STANDARD (INCLUDING DEDICATED SHUTTLE) 8 SPACES (>10% of the required)
MECHANICAL LIFT 59 SPACES
AISLE PARKING 5 SPACES
ADA STANDARD 2 SPACES
ADA VAN 1 SPACES
EVCS STANDARD 1 SPACES
EVCS VAN 1 SPACES
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 77 SPACES
In support of this request, the information contained in the PTDM plan recommends a design
including a 15% reduction from overall requirements where the total of available parking is
consistent with the above. As noted in the TDM Specialists cover letter, “A Hexagon 13-hotel
peak parking demand study identified .66 occupied parking spaces per occupied hotel room.
Hexagon conducted this study when hotel occupancies were between 90 and 100 percent. The
proposed ArtX parking ratio is .85 per occupied room, providing .19 more parking spaces per
occupied room than 13 other hotels.”
We believe the interpretation of the 15% reduction should include all available parking when a
commitment to a full-time valet program has been made. No differentiation between any of the
available spaces should be made when considering the availability of parking and a 15%
reduction should be just that. This clarification represents a smart and appropriate approach to
the parking requirement for this project.
We hope the ARB will recommend approval of this clarification and that you will move to
quickly confirm our request.
Thank you,
Randy Popp
2.g
Packet Pg. 64
March 10, 2021
Ms. Catherine Huang
HXH Property LLC
1426 Pitman Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: UPDATED PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 4256 EL CAMINO REAL
Dear Ms. Huang:
TDM Specialists, Inc. has updated the 2018 Parking and Transportation Demand
Management (PTDM) Plan for the 4256 El Camino Real hotel project.
The ArtX Hotel project's comprehensive PTDM Plan provides strategies and
mitigation for a 15 percent parking reduction and a 30 percent reduction of peak-
hour vehicle trips. The Plan meets commute-sustainable standards and will
eliminate potential spill-over parking in the neighborhood.
A 15 percent parking reduction
equates to .85 parking spaces
per occupied hotel room.
A Hexagon 13-hotel peak
parking demand study
identified .66 occupied parking
spaces per occupied hotel room.
Hexagon conducted this study
when hotel occupancies were
between 90 and 100 percent. The
proposed ArtX parking ratio is .85 per occupied room, providing .19 more parking
spaces per occupied room than 13 other hotels.
Parking mitigation includes stacked and tandem parking managed by a 24-hour
valet parking service and five aisle parking spaces to comply with the City
requirement.
The project's core TDM strategies designed to achieve a 30 percent reduction in
peak-hour trips include:
ArtX Hotel Parking Reduction Calculation Space
Parking space per hotel guest room 96
Less ADA planned overage per City Code*-5
Required parking less ADA overage 91
Allowed precent parking reduction 15%
Allowed parking space reduction 91 x 15% = 14 14
Total Parking Requirement 91 -14 = 77 77
* Note: Palo Alto Muni Code in reference to the ADA stalls -
18.52.040 - AB1100 (effective 1/1/2020) State Law Section 22511.2
for EVSE stalls
2.g
Packet Pg. 65
HXH Property LLC
March 10, 2021
Page 2
• access to transit resources providing 309 daily trips to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station
• on-demand and fixed-route shuttle services for guests and employee commuters
• employee transit subsidy (at least $150 per month)
• employee pre-tax payroll deduction option
• 100% subsidized vanpool program
• $50 cash allowance rewards for carpooling, biking, or walking to work
• free guaranteed ride home program
• the annual survey, monitoring, and reporting
• a paid on-site parking program
• 24/7 valet parking services
The City of Palo Alto's draft Transportation Analysis dated August 17, 2018, prepared by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, reported AM and PM peak-hour traffic operations (at
the El Camino Real/Dinahs Court intersection), operated adequately.
"…did not reveal any significant traffic-related issues, and the study intersection operated
adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Thus, the reported level of
service analysis appears to reflect actual existing traffic conditions accurately."1
After applying estimated ITE trip rates, appropriate expected PTDM trip reductions, and
existing site trip credits, the project generates 37 new trips occurring during the AM peak
hour and 17 new trips during the PM peak hour.
Thank you for the opportunity to prepare the updated PTDM Plan for the ArtX Hotel project.
Please contact me at (408) 420-2411 or elizabeth.hughes@tdmspecialists.com if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth L. Hughes
President
1 Draft Transportation Analysis for 4256 El Camino Real Hotel in Palo Alto, California, Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Inc., August 17, 2018
2.g
Packet Pg. 66
October 4, 2018
Updated: April 20, 2021 2.h
Packet Pg. 67
ArtX Hotel
4256 El Camino Real
Parking & Transportation Demand Management Plan
A Trip Reduction Plan
Prepared for:
HXH Property LLC
Prepared by:
(408) 420-2411
October 4, 2018
Updated: December 21, 2018
Updated: April 20, 2021
2.h
Packet Pg. 68
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PTDM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. i
Table 1 – Project Trip Generation Estimates ................................................................... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................... 1
2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT DEFINITION ............................................. 1
Rideshare and TDM Program Benefits ............................................................................. 2
Table 2 – Summary of Community, Business, and Commuter Benefits .......................... 2
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... 3
4256 El Camino Real Hotel Location Map ....................................................................... 3
SECTION I – EXISTING TRANSIT AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ......................................................... 5
4.0 TRANSIT PROXIMITY ........................................................................................................ 5
Transit Access ................................................................................................................... 6
The ArtX Hotel Transit Resources .................................................................................... 6
Transit Trip Planning Resources ....................................................................................... 6
Santa Clara VTA Transit Map ........................................................................................... 7
VTA Bus Route 22 – Route Map ....................................................................................... 8
VTA Bus Route 88 – Route Map ....................................................................................... 9
VTA Bus Route 88 – Route Map ..................................................................................... 10
5.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES ......................................................................................................... 11
Bicycle Resources ........................................................................................................... 12
Santa Clara County Bicycle Map .................................................................................... 13
City of Palo Alto Bicycle Map ......................................................................................... 14
6.0 COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY ......................................................................................... 14
15-Minute City – Walkable Map .................................................................................... 15
SECTION II – HOTEL EMPLOYEE PTDM INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................... 16
7.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 16
Valet Parking Operations ............................................................................................... 16
Mechanical Lift Management ........................................................................................ 16
Carpool and Vanpool Designations ................................................................................ 16
Motorcycle Parking ........................................................................................................ 17
8.0 PARKING DEMAND ......................................................................................................... 17
9.0 PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ................................................................................................ 18
10.0 BICYCLE AMENITIES ....................................................................................................... 19
Long-Term Bicycle Parking ............................................................................................. 19
Short-Term Bicycle Parking ............................................................................................ 20
Shower and Clothes Lockers ........................................................................................... 20
Hotel Resources Webpage ............................................................................................. 20
Employee Commuter Resource Flier .............................................................................. 20
Wi-Fi Access ................................................................................................................... 22
2.h
Packet Pg. 69
On-site Exercise Facilities ............................................................................................... 22
SECTION III – HOTEL EMPLOYEE PTDM PROGRAM ................................................................ 23
11.0 TRANSIT AND VANPOOL SUBSIDIES ............................................................................... 23
Subsidized Transit Passes ............................................................................................... 23
100% Subsidized Vanpool Program ............................................................................... 23
12.0 COMMUTER ALLOWANCES FOR CARPOOLERS, PEDESTRIANS, AND CYCLISTS ............. 23
Commuter Allowance – Pedestrian, Bicycle, Carpool .................................................... 23
$25 Carpool Incentive Program ..................................................................................... 24
13.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL MATCHING RESOURCES ....................................................... 24
Ridematching ................................................................................................................. 24
Carpool Parking Permits/Reserved Parking ................................................................... 25
Employee Commuter Bike Program ............................................................................... 26
14.0 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM........................................................................... 26
15.0 MISCELLANEOUS PTDM MEASURES .............................................................................. 27
Commuter Rewards ....................................................................................................... 27
Employee Overnight Accommodations .......................................................................... 27
16.0 EMPLOYEE COMMUTER OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND PROMOTIONS ....................... 27
Grand Opening Commuter Kick-off Campaign .............................................................. 27
Employer Commute Coordinator ................................................................................... 28
Employee Outreach ........................................................................................................ 29
17.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING ..................................................................................... 29
Annual Five-day Employee Commute Survey ................................................................. 29
Annual Commute Summary Report ............................................................................... 30
SECTION IV – GUEST PTDM PROGRAMS ............................................................................... 31
18.0 GUEST TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................. 31
Pre-loaded Clipper Cards ................................................................................................ 31
Promote Car-Free Travel Packages ................................................................................ 31
Trained Reservation Staff ............................................................................................... 31
Hotel Confirmation Email ............................................................................................... 31
Getting Around Palo Alto Brochure ............................................................................... 31
Employee and Guest On-demand Shuttle ...................................................................... 32
SECTION V – GUEST AND EMPLOYEE (DUAL) PTDM PROGRAMS ........................................... 33
19.0 GUEST AND EMPLOYEE (DUAL) PTDM PROGRAMS ....................................................... 33
Paid Parking ................................................................................................................... 33
Valet Attendant Parking ................................................................................................ 33
Passenger Loading/Unloading Zone .............................................................................. 34
20.0 ON-SITE AND NEARBY AMENITIES ................................................................................. 34
On-site Amenities ........................................................................................................... 34
Employer-Driven Amenities (required) ........................................................................... 34
Employer-Driven Amenities (encouraged) ..................................................................... 35
On-Site and Nearby Amenities ....................................................................................... 35
2.h
Packet Pg. 70
Transportation/Commute Kiosks (TransitScreen) .......................................................... 35
Hotel Bicycle Program .................................................................................................... 35
SECTION VI – OPTIONAL PTDM BENEFITS ............................................................................. 36
21.0 OPTIONAL PTDM BENEFITS............................................................................................ 36
Membership in Palo Alto TMA ....................................................................................... 36
VTA Transit Shelter Adopt-a-Stop .................................................................................. 36
City of Palo Alto Bike Share Program ............................................................................. 37
Carshare Program .......................................................................................................... 38
Hotel-funded Annual Carshare Membership ................................................................. 38
Proposed Palo Alto City West Shuttle ............................................................................ 39
22.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 40
ATTACHMENT
List of Nearby Amenities (personal services, restaurants, coffee, retail/sundry, banking, etc.)
Case Studies – Successful Hotel Projects that Reduce Vehicle Trips
APPENDIX A
Parking Study for the Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto
TDM SPECIALISTS, INC. QUALIFICATIONS
2.h
Packet Pg. 71
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page i
PTDM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
According to the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the proposed project, known as the ArtX
Hotel (formerly named the Caterina Hotel), would be required to develop a comprehensive
Transportation Demand Management plan. The TDM Plan provides strategies and mitigation
for a 15 percent parking reduction and a 30 percent reduction of peak-hour vehicle trips.
The project also incorporated Parking Management and Parking Demand Assessments into the
TDM plan. The proposed Palo Alto Hotel project's Parking and Transportation Demand
Management (PTDM) meet commute-sustainable standards and support a parking reduction.
Outcomes from these trip reduction and parking management actions and activities will
eliminate potential spill-over parking in the neighborhood.
This green development approach reduces parking demand, vehicle trips, air pollution, and
traffic congestion and contributes to successful carbon footprint and greenhouse gas
reductions for long-term sustainable operations.
The applicant's green and sustainable planning approach included a review of actual hotel
vehicle parking per occupied hotel rooms in determining the typical rate of hotel parking use.
A Hexagon Transportation hotel parking demand study, conducted for another Palo Alto hotel
(Comfort Inn), analyzed the peak parking demand at 13 similar hotels and motels in the area.
The study looked at the peak parking demand ratio per occupied hotel room. During the
parking count study, hotel/motel occupancy was between 90 and 100 percent. The trend of
ridesharing (Uber and Lyft) gaining in market share and a decline in the use of rental cars may
partially explain why there is less than one vehicle parked per occupied room."
The Hexagon hotel parking study determined the "average parking demand at the thirteen Palo
Alto locations was determined to be 0.66 occupied parking spaces per occupied room."1 The
ArtX Hotel's parking study resulted in a
parking demand ratio of 0.85 parking
spaces per occupied room which is 19
percentage points more than typical Palo
Alto hotels.
This PTDM provides supporting
justification for a proposed parking
reduction of 15 percent (of planned
parking), representing a reduction of 14
parking spaces.
1 Draft Transportation Analysis for 4256 El Camino Real Hotel in Palo Alto, California, Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Inc., August 17, 2018
ArtX Hotel Parking Reduction Calculation Space
Parking space per hotel guest room 96
Less ADA planned overage per City Code*-5
Planned parking less ADA overage 91
Allowed precent parking reduction 15%
Allowed parking space reduction 14
Total parking space reduction 91 -14 = 77 77
* Note: Palo Alto Muni Code in reference to the ADA stalls -
18.52.040 - AB1100 (effective 1/1/2020) State Law Section
22511.2 for EVSE stalls
2.h
Packet Pg. 72
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page ii
Parking mitigation includes stacked and tandem parking managed by a 24-hour valet parking
service that provides five aisle parking spaces to comply with the City requirement.
The measures and elements contained in this plan are consistent with well-performing
employee TDM plans and commute programs in the City of Palo Alto, Stanford Research Park,
and other locations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Provided as an attachment are case studies
of other hotel projects with successful trip reduction programs. The ArtX Hotel project commits
to meeting vehicle trip requirements using PTDM strategies scaled to fit this hotel site.
The 4256 El Camino Real project is near transit resources that provide 309 daily trips connecting
to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. VTA buses serving the site expand transportation to the Palo
Alto Caltrain Station, the residential neighborhood between Charleston and Oregon
Expressway, and Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose areas.
Employee commuter benefits include last-mile shuttle service, transit subsidies, cash
allowances for those who bike, carpool, or walk to work, a free emergency ride home program,
and a commuter bike program. Alternative transportation guest incentives include a "car-free
discount package," on-demand shuttle service, pay to park, on-site carshare vehicle, pre-loaded
Clipper Cards, and a hotel bikeshare program.
Yearly monitoring includes the project's trip reduction activities and hotel employee
transportation mode-use rates. The first employee online commuter survey takes place two
years after the occupancy of the project. Also, cordon traffic hoses will be deployed annually
across both driveways to record actual peak-hour trip results.
The project will provide an annual transportation commuter survey report to the City's Chief
Transportation official. The report's information will include results from the yearly employee
commute survey and data from the cordon hose trip counts.
The City of Palo Alto's draft Transportation Analysis dated August 17, 2018, prepared by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, reported AM and PM peak-hour traffic operations (at the
El Camino Real/Dinahs Court intersection), operated adequately. Shown below is an excerpt
from the City's report.
"…did not reveal any significant traffic-related issues, and the study intersection operated
adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Thus, the reported level of
service analysis appears to reflect actual existing traffic conditions accurately."2
2 Draft Transportation Analysis for 4256 El Camino Real Hotel in Palo Alto, California, Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Inc., August 17, 2018
2.h
Packet Pg. 73
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page iii
The Transportation Analysis report identified the existing occupied building's trip generation,
credited against the proposed hotel development. The project's traffic study estimated net new
trips. Net new trips calculate the proposed project's trips and subtract the current land use
restaurant trips (Su Hong Eatery Restaurant).
After applying estimated ITE trip rates, appropriate expected PTDM trip reductions, and existing
site trip credits, the project generates 37 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 42
new trips during the PM peak hour. Table 1 below shows the estimated trip generation and
calculations for this hotel project.
Table 1 – Project Trip Generation Estimates
The core PTDM measures designed to mitigate 30 percent of peak-hour vehicle trips for the
project include the following:
Hotel Employee PTDM Infrastructure
• Preferential carpool and vanpool parking
• Motorcycle parking
• Pedestrian facilities
• Bicycle parking and shower facilities
• Employee commuter resource webpage
• Employee commute resource flier
Hotel Employee PTDM Program
• Subsidized transit passes (Caltrain and VTA)
• Pre-tax transit payroll deduction option
• Automated monthly funding of transit pass/Clipper Card (e.g., CommuterCheckDirect.com
or ClipperDirect.com)
• 100% subsidized vanpool program (at 85% seat occupancy - 6 of 7 seats)
• Cash allowances for carpooling, biking, and walking to work (at $50 per month – taxable to
employees)
AM Pk-Hr PM Pk-Hr
Trips Trips
Land Use Total Total
Proposed Land Use
Boutique Hotel1 96 53 60
TDM Program (30%)30% 30%
Subtotal -16 -18
New Project Trips 37 42
Notes:
1. Hotel (Land Use 310) average rates published in ITE's Trip
Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2021
Size
(rooms)
2.h
Packet Pg. 74
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page iv
• Ridematching resources
• Carpool/vanpool parking permits (and free parking for employees who carpool together)
• Commuter bike program (for employees)
• Guaranteed ride home program
• Employee commuter outreach, education, promotions, and marketing
• Employee commute coordinator to manage programs and assist employees
• Annual 5-day employee commute survey
• Annual driveway hose count survey
• Annual commute survey and driveway trip count report
Guest PTDM Programs
• Pre-loaded Clipper Cards for guest transit travel (available for purchase)
• Promote car-free travel packages (discounts)
• Trained reservation staff to provide transit information
• Hotel confirmation email to include how to reach the hotel without a vehicle
• Place a Getting Around Palo Alto brochure in each guest room
• Commuter guest shuttle providing on-demand and fixed-route services (including to Caltrain
station)
Guest & Employee (Dual) PTDM Programs
• Hotel-operated on-demand shuttle services
• Paid on-site parking
• Valet attendant parking
• Passenger loading/unloading area
• On-site and nearby amenities (sundries, restaurant, laundry, exercise facilities, wireless
access)
• Transportation/commuter kiosks (TransitScreen)
• Hotel bikeshare program
Optional PTDM Benefits
• (Future) Hotel membership in Palo Alto TMA
• Bus shelter installation
• VTA Adopt-a-Stop
• Integrate with Palo Alto City Bike Share program
• Advocate for City to install a nearby public carshare resource (Zipcar)
• Hotel-funded carshare membership for employees
• 24/7 valet parking service
2.h
Packet Pg. 75
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The comprehensive plan of commute transportation options and on-site measures (identified in
this report) is essential to realizing the project's trip reduction benefits as required by potential
Conditions of Approval for the Use Permit and the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. These
factors will provide the momentum to achieve desired trip reduction needs for this project.
The ArtX Hotel PTDM plan incorporates trip reduction strategies to meet the City's trip
reduction goals and reduce traffic impacts in the neighborhood and maximize hotel employees'
mobility options. The applicant has included transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and rideshare
incentives to promote alternative transportation uses.
The 2014 Santa Clara VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (part of the CMP adopted
March 2009) identify several trip reduction elements, including some of this project. This
project includes the following requirements that contribute to its on-site parking demand
reduction efforts:
• Financial Incentives3 (employee transit subsidies, or SmartPass) – up to 5 percent
• Employment Near a Major Bus Stop (via VTA routes/Caltrain shuttles) – 2 percent
Initiating a shuttle program will further support reductions in parking:
• Project-funded dedicated shuttle – 3 percent
• Partially-funded multi-site shuttle – 2 percent
The City of Palo Alto has the discretion to assess additional trip reduction assignments listed in
this PTDM Plan, such as carpool matching and parking, bicycle facilities, commuter incentives,
and pedestrian elements.
2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT DEFINITION
TDM is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single-occupant
vehicle (SOV) trips to relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, and air pollution problems.
The following are fundamental achievable goals gained through effective utilization of a trip
reduction program with the use of TDM measures:
• Reduce parking demand by converting SOV trips to an alternate transportation mode
(e.g., transit, carpool or vanpool, bicycling or walking).
3 Financial incentives must be offered on an ongoing basis and must be roughly equivalent to or higher than the monthly
maximum pre-tax commuter benefit allowed under federal law at the time of TIA preparation in order for the project to receive
full trip reduction.
2.h
Packet Pg. 76
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 2
• Shift travel to less congested facilities by providing traveler information systems that
warn motorists about delays or alternative routes.
• Support other technological solutions (e.g., compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid
vehicles, or other zero-emission vehicles).
• Eliminate or shift trips from peak periods (e.g., flexible schedules, compressed
workweeks, or telecommuting).
Current economics and limited resources affect the ability to build and maintain more roads or
parking structures. This reality necessitates the better utilization of the existing transportation
infrastructure (like adding a second shift at an existing manufacturing plant). To that end, TDM
measures support the transition to greater use of existing alternative transportation options.
Rideshare and TDM Program Benefits
Commuters can experience stress and frustration long before their workday officially begins.
The project's transportation choices will improve the commuter experience and local
communities and business environments by decreasing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas
emissions. Shown in Table 2 is a list of community, employer, and employee-related commuter
benefits derived from TDM planning.
Table 2 – Summary of Community, Business, and Commuter Benefits
COMMUNITY and BUSINESS Benefits COMMUNITY and COMMUTER Benefits
Improve recruitment and retention rates Freedom from traffic jams
Reduce the need/demand for parking Ability to work or relax during commute time
and reduce stress/improve quality of life
Enhance company commuter benefits
package
Increased time in the day to read, talk with
friends, or get ahead at work
Improve employee access to transit
Save hundreds of dollars a year in auto
expenses (gas, insurance, wear/tear,
maintenance, tolls)
Enhance community relations Use pre-tax dollars to pay for public
transportation expenses
Improve employee morale and
productivity
Feel secure with free emergency ride home
program
Alleviate employee stress and expense Lower insurance premium on personal vehicle
No/low cost programs for employers Get to work and get home on time regardless of
the weather, traffic accidents, and breakdowns
Reduce traffic congestion Help reduce environmental pollution and
overcrowded roads/congestion
Access a larger employee base Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
2.h
Packet Pg. 77
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 3
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed ArtX Hotel site is at 4256 El Camino Real in Palo Alto. The project will include one
hotel building with 96 rooms, an underground parking garage, hotel amenities, and additional
site improvements. The project currently proposes 77 parking spaces (a rate of 0.85 parking
spaces per guestroom). The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.52 and 18.54 requires
one parking space per hotel room, less ADA duplicated parking. Thus, the project would provide
14 fewer parking spaces than the code. However, the valet parking service can accommodate
an additional five vehicles using aisle parking arrangements. Shown below is a project location
map.
4256 El Camino Real Hotel Location Map
2.h
Packet Pg. 78
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 4
The quarter-mile radius map shows nearby transit facilities, retail, personal services, and
restaurants near the project site.
This PTDM Plan addresses employee trips associated with a hotel project, on-site parking
management, and parking demand. Included in the following six sections is a description of
alternative transportation mode-use strategies.
I. Existing Transit and Bicycle Facilities
II. Hotel PTDM Infrastructure
III. Guest PTDM Programs
IV. Employee PTDM Program
V. Guest and Employee (Dual) PTDM Programs
VI. Public PTDM Benefits
2.h
Packet Pg. 79
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 5
SECTION I – EXISTING TRANSIT AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
1 4.0 TRANSIT PROXIMITY
The proposed ArtX Hotel is within 0.10, and 0.20-mile walking distance near (measured from
the main building entrance) two existing commuter VTA bus stops. Shown below is an image of
transit bus stop locations and their relationship to the hotel site.
2.h
Packet Pg. 80
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 6
Transit Access
Within a quarter-mile distance, Transit services total more than 309 trips per day, providing
superior transit connectivity for future hotel employees at the worksite. A transit access table,
shown below, identifies the number of transit trips available to employees who will work on
this project.
The ArtX Hotel Transit Resources
Note: VTA transit trip data was originally determined in October 2018. Due to pandemic
concerns, VTA Services have been reduced. Future VTA bus services may fluctuate with economic
and market conditions and are expected to return to near pre-pandemic levels.
Transit Trip Planning Resources
Online trip planning services
are a helpful tool for
planning bicycles, carpools,
and public transit trips.
Google has also collaborated with select regional transit agencies to provide a public transit planner for riders of SamTrans, AC Transit, Caltrain, and more. Employees can find free service online at www.google.com/transit.
The "Transit" mobile app also provides trip and route
planning resources for commuters to use. Users can view
real-time information such as location, next departure times, and even crowding data for
transit agencies like VTA, BART, Caltrain, AC Transit, SamTrans, and more. The Transit app lets
Route Span of Service Trips per
Weekday Communities Served
22
VTA
7 Days/Week
3:41 a.m. - 3:33 a.m.150
Palo Alto Transit Center, El Camino Real & California, El Camino Real
& Tamarack, El Camino Real & Showers, El Camino Real & Castro, El
Camino Real & Hollenbeck, El Camino Real & Wolfe, El Camino Real
& Kiely, Santa Clara Transit Center, The Alameda & Naglee, Santa
Clara & 1st, King & Alum Rock, King & Story, and Eastridge Transit
Center
522
VTA
7 Days/Week
5:40 a.m. - 10:52 p.m.159
Palo Alto Transit Center, El Camino Real & California, El Camino Real
& Arastradero, El Camino Real & Showers, El Camino Real & Castro,
El Camino Real & Hollenbeck, El Camino Real & Wolfe, El Camino
Real & Kiely, Santa Clara Transit Center, The Alameda & Naglee,
Santa Clara & 1st, Alum Rock & King, Alum Rock Transit Center, and
Eastridge Transit Center
Total VTA Bus Trips/Weekday 309
* All buses and trains are lift equipped for handicapped, elderly, or those in need.
2.h
Packet Pg. 81
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 7
users preview routes using multiple transit modes and even integrates fare purchases and
Lyft/Uber requests. Below is a targeted VTA System Map of transit services near the project.
Page 8 is a map of VTA bus route 22. Page 9 shows VTA bus route 88 and page 10 shows route
522.
Santa Clara VTA Transit Map
2.h
Packet Pg. 82
VTA Bus Route 22 – Route Map
2.h
Packet Pg. 83
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 9
VTA Bus Route 88 – Route Map
2.h
Packet Pg. 84
VTA Bus Route 88 – Route Map
2.h
Packet Pg. 85
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 11
5.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES
The project enjoys nearby pedestrian and bicycle connections. ArtX
Hotel guests and employees can use Class II
bike lanes along West Charleston Road. The
site is "very bikable," which means biking is
convenient for most trips, according to
WalkScore.com.
Shown below is a bike route map from the project site to the California
Avenue Caltrain Station. The bike trip takes 12-17 minutes to travel
the 2.3-mile distance.
2.h
Packet Pg. 86
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 12
Bicycle Resources
Bicycle commuters looking for bike route trip planning or to find a riding partner can log on to
https://511.org/biking for more information. The 511 system provides significant resources for
bicycle commuters, including:
♦ Free Bike Buddy matching
♦ Bicycle maps
♦ Location of lockers
♦ How to take your bike on public transit
♦ How to take your bike across Bay Area toll bridges
♦ How to ride safely in traffic
♦ Tips on commuting
♦ Tips for bike selection
♦ Links to bicycle organizations
♦ Bike to Work Day
2.h
Packet Pg. 87
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 13
Shown below is the VTA Bikeways Map. Provided on page 14 is a Bicycle Map of Palo Alto.
Santa Clara County Bicycle Map
2.h
Packet Pg. 88
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 14
City of Palo Alto Bicycle Map
6.0 COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY
The ArtX Hotel will become a pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented hotel-use project that
embraces the best of Palo Alto's goals and policies. Some pedestrian and transit-oriented
design features include connecting last-mile shuttle service, tying into the adjacent bicycle and
pedestrian circulation facilities, providing hotel bicycles, and a transportation kiosk.
2.h
Packet Pg. 89
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 15
The new "15-minute city" tool indicates the project's location as bikeable and walkable, making
it possible to meet basic needs within a 15-minute walk or bike ride. The image below shows
available amenities and services within a 15-minute walk.
15-Minute City – Walkable Map
2.h
Packet Pg. 90
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 16
SECTION II – HOTEL EMPLOYEE PTDM INFRASTRUCTURE
The following physical infrastructure measures support alternative transportation commuters.
7.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT
The willingness and actual level of employee ridesharing directly link to parking convenience,
availability, and parking cost. The following section identifies typical off-street parking
management and operations activities, such as the valet's purpose and use, the operation of
the mechanical lifts, preferential carpool and motorcycle parking, and passenger loading.
Valet Parking Operations
The hotel valet parking operator will operate 24/7. Employees and hotel guests who arrive with
vehicles will require check-in for registration with the hotel. This 24/7 valet operation will allow
the valet operator to use all provided spaces, including five "stacked parking" in drive aisles of
the parking garage. Provided on page 33 are more details about the valet parking program.
Mechanical Lift Management
Valet operators will use mechanical lift parking equipment to distribute vehicles anticipating
long-term versus short-term parking demands.
Carpool and Vanpool Designations
One effective means of encouraging hotel employees to carpool and use a
clean-fuel vehicle is to reserve the preferred parking spaces (premium,
convenient locations close to buildings in the shade or within 100 feet of a
building entrance) for the exclusive use
of carpools and vanpools.
Preferential parking spaces are an
excellent incentive that sends a clear message to
employees that alternative transportation is valued.
The ArtX Hotel project will be responsible for striping
the parking space pavement and providing appropriate
signage for preferential parking.
2.h
Packet Pg. 91
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 17
Motorcycle Parking
The project will designate creative small parking spaces for
motorcycles and electric scooters in a covered location. Electric
scooters will be encouraged for employee consideration to
highlight their contribution to reducing vehicle congestion and
parking.
8.0 PARKING DEMAND
The ArtX Hotel seeks to reduce parking by 15 percent (14
spaces), reflecting a parking ratio of 0.85 spaces per hotel room.
A parking occupancy survey of similar-sized hotel projects indicated typical off-street parking
demand during peak periods for hotels was 0.66 spaces per hotel room.
A parking occupancy survey of 3945 El Camino Real immediately adjacent to the project
documented the existing off-street parking demand. The October 2017 Parking Study for the
Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real, prepared by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, provided an analysis of the peak parking demand at similar hotels and motels in
the area. Surveyed parking ratios at area hotels estimate the number of parking spaces
necessary to serve the Comfort Inn project. Below is an excerpt from this study summarizing
Palo Alto hotels' peak parking demand, indicating the average parking demand at 13 locations
was determined to be 0.66 occupied spaces per occupied room. The ArtX Hotel is proposing a
parking ratio of 0.85. Provided in Appendix A is the hotel parking demand study.
Hexagon conducted peak parking counts at thirteen comparable hotels and motels in Palo
Alto and nearby cities to determine the peak parking demand per occupied room. The
number of vehicles parked at each hotel and motel was counted at midnight on two to three
typical days. The hotel management was contacted to determine the number of rooms
occupied on each survey date. These lodgings were chosen because they are similar in
location to the Comfort Inn and serve primarily business travelers.
Based on the peak parking counts conducted at the surveyed hotels/motels, parking demand
was consistently found to be below the City's code requirement of one space per room. The
average parking demand at the thirteen locations was determined to be 0.66 occupied
spaces per occupied room. Hotel/motel occupancy at the time of the counts was between 90
and 100 percent at most sites. The trend of ridesharing gaining in market share and a decline
in the use of rental cars may partially explain why there is less than one vehicle parked per
occupied room.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, October 2017 Parking Study for the Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel
at 3945 El Camino Real
2.h
Packet Pg. 92
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 18
Shown below are results from the hotel parking demand surveys.
Source: Parking Study for the Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California
9.0 PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES
Creating a pedestrian-oriented environment ensures access between
public areas and private development while strengthening pedestrian
and bicycle connections—pedestrian-friendly ground floor facades,
entrances, and pathways that will encourage pedestrian and bicycle
movement. Safe, convenient, and well-lit pedestrian paths will directly
route to the nearest shuttle or transit stop from the project.
Lighting, landscaping, and building orientation will be designed to
enhance pedestrian safety, and patio spaces/widened sidewalk areas
will be provided at the building. Pedestrian spaces can be used for
2.h
Packet Pg. 93
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 19
recreation, eating, or other outdoor activities.
According to WalkScore.com, the ArtX Hotel site has a
"somewhat walkable" place, scoring 62 out of 100.
The ArtX Hotel will enhance pedestrian and bicycle
connections by widening the sidewalks along El Camino Real to meet City standards. The
project will provide wider sidewalks greater than the minimum requirements.
Pedestrian continuity will also be created by:
• Disguising surface parking by placing it under and behind the building.
• Recessing door and window features of the building to increase the walkable area of the
sidewalks along El Camino Real.
• Planting sidewalk trees that will enhance the entryway of the project.
• Incorporating a plaza and landscaped area to serve visitors and passersby at the entry to
the building. There will also be in-ground and potted plantings and sidewalk
landscaping.
10.0 BICYCLE AMENITIES
Bicycle commuters will receive free on-site Class I (long-term) and Class II (short-term) secure
bicycle parking facilities.
Long-Term Bicycle Parking
A total of six Class I secure and covered bicycle parking will be provided. These parking facilities
may include individual bicycle lockers or a bicycle cage/room in the garage. Shown below are
sample photos of Class I bicycle parking options.
2.h
Packet Pg. 94
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 20
Short-Term Bicycle Parking
The project will install three Class II (short-term) bicycle racks at the hotel project. Shown below
are examples of Class II racks. Class II secure bicycle racks will be "U racks," or equivalent, and
must secure the frame and both wheels. Guest bike racks will be near building entrances within
constant visual range unless they demonstrate that they create a public hazard or locate them
there is otherwise infeasible. If space is unavailable near building entrances, the racks must
protect the lock from physical assault. Three bike racks can accommodate six bicycles.
Shower and Clothes Lockers
Installed for employees who walk or bike to work will be two showers for those who wish to
change clothes after commuting via an alternative transportation mode (not driving alone).
Showers and a changing facility will be provided free of charge for all employees.
Hotel Resources Webpage
The hotel project's webpage will incorporate transportation information links to provide easy
access to trip planning resources.
Website links will include Caltrain.com, 511.com, and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition,
VTA.org, and bicycle maps. Shown below are sample commuter images for the webpage.
Employee Commuter Resource Flier
All employees will receive an employee commuter flier. This flier will include (but is not limited
to) information about free carpool parking, transit subsidies, shuttle and transit opportunities,
2.h
Packet Pg. 95
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 21
bicycle routes, and on-site amenities and resources. Fliers will be made available at the
commute resources kiosks and integrated with employer information. The hotel can also use
these fliers with their new employee orientation packets. Below is a sample commuter
resource flier.
2.h
Packet Pg. 96
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 22
Wi-Fi Access
As a hotel-complex-wide resource, free wireless service allows guests and staff to access online
and real-time information. Although wireless service is commonplace in today's workplace and
hospitality environments, it contributes as a supporting feature for successful commuter and
transportation programs.
On-site Exercise Facilities
Typically, exercise facilities at hotels are for use by
guests. As an added PTDM feature, hotel employees will
also receive access to on-site exercise facilities.
The more resources and services offered to employees at
their workplace, the less reason to drive a vehicle and
make separate trips. On-site resources mean that using
transit is more viable since there will not be a need to
use a car to go to the gym before or after work.
2.h
Packet Pg. 97
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 23
SECTION III – HOTEL EMPLOYEE PTDM PROGRAM
11.0 TRANSIT AND VANPOOL SUBSIDIES
Hotel staff and workers will receive transit and vanpool subsidies. Subsidies help reduce the
number of single-occupant vehicles (SOV) on the road by encouraging employees to use an
alternative method for getting to work, saving them money. The proposed hotel last-mile
shuttle will provide connectivity with local VTA bus routes and Caltrain at the various Palo Alto
transit stations.
Subsidized Transit Passes
The ArtX Hotel project will offer all employees a 100
percent transit subsidy for commuting to the project site.
A transit subsidy program may include participation in the
VTA SmartPass program, Commuter Check Direct, pre-paid
Clipper Cards, or a comparable cash transit subsidy.
100% Subsidized Vanpool Program
Vanpools provide an alternative to driving alone and riding
public transit. This option offers increased employee
carrying capacity (than carpooling) and significantly
reduced costs while still providing flexibility and
convenience to the users. Programs usually involve
commuters traveling in a passenger van with one group
member acting as the driver and person responsible for
the vehicle.
The ArtX Hotel project will fully fund vanpools for hotel staff who organize vanpool groups.
Funding will include the monthly lease, fuel, and FasTrak (if needed). To be sustainable,
subsidized vanpools must maintain 85% employee seat occupancy, approximately six seats in a
seven-passenger minivan.
12.0 COMMUTER ALLOWANCES FOR CARPOOLERS, PEDESTRIANS, AND
CYCLISTS
Commuter Allowance – Pedestrian, Bicycle, Carpool
As a taxable benefit, the office tenant(s) will offer their employees a monthly cash allowance
for commuters who predominately walk, bicycle or carpool to work. Per IRS regulations [Section
132(f)], commuter payments will be added to income and subject to tax withholding at the
federal and state supplemental tax rate.
2.h
Packet Pg. 98
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 24
A commuter may only participate in one type of transportation mode per day up to the
maximum allowance allowed per month. For example, commuters may not receive transit
subsidy benefits and then claim a walk, bike, or carpool allowance for last-mile travel from the
train station.
Hotel employees that regularly carpool, bicycle, or walk to work will receive a minimum of $50
per month to defray commute costs. An allowance will help offset expenses, such as clothing,
shoes, bike tires or lights, helmets, etc. Cash commuter allowances may be a taxable benefit
for employees.
Hotel employees tend to work in specified shifts, and carpools and vanpools can be challenging
to coordinate. Flexible hours can be uncertain since employees are direct customer service
based.
$25 Carpool Incentive Program
511's Merge program rewards all carpools who create a Merge account. Carpoolers Earn ten
points per logged carpool trip and a $25 reward for every 250 points earned. Participants can
choose from a catalog of e-gift cards or donate their reward amount to a nonprofit.
13.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL MATCHING RESOURCES
Ridematching
The hotel manager will promote free ride-matching services. San Francisco Bay Area 511.org is
working with private ride-matching companies to provide commuters with alternative
ridematching resources. A sample of ridematching apps include the following:
2.h
Packet Pg. 99
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 25
The hotel management can also independently research employee ZIP code data from internal
records and offer to match employees who live near one another.
Carpool Parking Permits/Reserved Parking
As carpools and vanpools form, the carpool parking spaces may require
policy development, employee registration, and permits. As needed, the
Hotel Employee Commute Program will be responsible for monitoring
these parking spaces' for carpoolers.
2.h
Packet Pg. 100
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 26
Employee Commuter Bike Program
The hotel will provide employees with a bicycle program.
Bicycles may be available on-site for employee use for travel
to meetings, exercise, and used for commuting purposes.
This employer-sponsored
bicycle program will provide
a selection of safe and
bicycles and appropriate
accessories (e.g., helmets,
reflective wear, locks, pant
protectors, etc.). These bikes
will be regular cruiser-type
cycles. Registration in this program will allow the employee to
identify their commute travel distance from the hotel and use
the bicycle for commuting.
Hotel bikes for employees will be maintained regularly and kept in good working condition. All
public transit resources have bicycle racks so that trips can link for longer distances.
14.0 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM
The hotel shall implement a Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program for employees who use
alternative transportation modes. Employees who commute to work using transit, bicycle, or
carpool or vanpool will be guaranteed a free ride home in the case of a personal emergency or
when they unexpectedly have to work late, thereby missing the last bus or their carpool home.
The GRH program has proven very successful as it removes one objection employees have to
give up their private automobile, especially those with young families.
If the hotel participates in a Transportation Management Association (TMA), GRH services can
incorporate an included feature.
Qualifying emergencies include:
• An illness affecting the employee or an immediate family member
• The carpool driver experienced an emergency, and the employee was left behind
• Eldercare or daycare emergency
• Emergency at the employee's residence
• Unforeseen or unscheduled overtime requested by a supervisor or manager
• Other personal emergencies—needs to be a "true" emergency
• A broken bicycle, a stolen bicycle, or severe weather creating a dangerous situation for
bicycling or walking
2.h
Packet Pg. 101
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 27
Employees will pre-register for the program to establish eligibility. Eligible employees who
enroll in the program (and who do not drive alone to work) will be able to utilize a ride-hailing
service such as Lyft or Uber to get a ride home in the event of a midday emergency. The GRH
trip will reimburse up to $65 per ride (for a maximum of four trips per year).
If the project participates in the VTA SmartPass program, a free GRH program becomes
available for employees who use transit for commuting.
15.0 MISCELLANEOUS PTDM MEASURES
Commuter Rewards
Each month or quarter, the hotel project will provide a limited number of rewards to
employees participating in transit, bike, walk, or carpool options for their commute choice.
Commuter rewards can be fuel cards, movie tickets, gift cards (Starbucks), or any other desired
item that reflects an appreciation for employees who participate.
Employee Overnight Accommodations
Suppose an employee works a late evening shift followed by an early morning shift (or vice
versa). In that case, the employee will receive free overnight accommodation at the hotel
(subject to room availability). Overnight accommodations will eliminate the employee's need
to drive themselves to and from work to accommodate a busy schedule.
16.0 EMPLOYEE COMMUTER OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND PROMOTIONS
An active Commute Coordinator, cooperative hotel management, and dynamic human resource
team will positively impact successful trip reduction efforts. PTDM commute programs and
benefits must be presented to the employees comprehensively and proactively along with
other employee programs. It can be done via participation in and supporting employee
orientation forums or transportation fairs, transportation kiosk posting, employee newsletters,
management bulletins, emails, etcetera. A summary of employer commute features applicable
to hotel employee programs is provided in the Appendix.
Grand Opening Commuter Kick-off Campaign
Before the hotel's grand opening, the project will host a commute alternative kick-off
event/celebration or employee marketing campaign. Transportation service providers, such as
Caltrain, VTA, 511, and bicycle programs, will be presented to employees. The hotel or building
management will advertise and market the campaign for at least two weeks.
2.h
Packet Pg. 102
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 28
Employer Commute Coordinator
The hotel ownership shall provide an employee commute coordinator (ECC) to manage and
monitor the alternative commute programs. The ECC's primary responsibility will be
implementing many of the programs and features described in The ArtX Hotel PTDM Plan. The
ECC will be responsible for providing ongoing commute assistance to employees, producing on-
site transportation fairs and promotional campaigns, collaborating with VTA to promote the Eco
Pass program (if implemented), 511 to maximize rideshare resources, and conducting the
annual survey.
The ECC will provide the following services:
• Promote trip reduction and air quality strategies to employees at the project site;
• Host commuter bicycle training, including routes to and from the Caltrain stations).
• Conduct new hotel employee commuter training and assistance.
• Maintain membership in the TMA (if required);
• Be the main point of contact for employees who wish to commute using an alternative
transportation mode;
• Work with local agencies such as the Palo Alto TMA, Caltrain, VTA, 511 Rideshare, the
Stanford Marguerite Shuttle, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD);
• Develop and manage employee transportation and commute information webpage.
The webpage will contain transportation information, resources, links, promotions,
incentives, prizes or awards, spare the air notices, transit links, 511 ridematching, and
other related information.
• Post informational materials on the employee Commuter Website, transportation kiosks
and disperse alternative program information to employees, posters, fliers, banners, e-
newsletters, new employee orientation, etcetera;
• Participate in the BAAQMD Spare the Air program to encourage employees not to drive
to work alone;
• Coordinate various aspects of the program that require periodic updating or monitoring,
management of the guaranteed ERH program, monthly rewards, car and vanpool
registration, parking enforcement, and locker assignment.
Alternate transportation programs will be presented to commuters comprehensively and
proactively, just like any other employee program. Communication can be done via
participation in and supporting transportation kiosk postings, employee newsletters,
management bulletins, emails, and other methods.
2.h
Packet Pg. 103
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 29
An Employee Commute Program is a big picture process. It includes explaining the area's air
quality problems and describing how fighting air pollution is part of being a good corporate
citizen. The employees must recognize the benefits personally to see how they gain from better
air quality: less traffic congestion on the highways and the surrounding neighborhoods, fewer
parking hassles, and cost savings for employees, among other benefits. The ECC will work to
build employee participation in the commute programs.
Employee Outreach
Throughout the year, the project ECC will maintain employee awareness by hosting
transportation promotions that highlight transit subsidies and trip-planning services, rideshare
matching, and other commute opportunities at the site.
The project ECC will write periodic rideshare articles for internal employee newsletters with
ongoing highlights of alternative commuters and their successes. Internal company notices and
incentive promotions should attract commuters' attention, generate excitement about the use
of commute alternatives, and reward those who rideshare. These promotions often are
sponsored in conjunction with the Regional Rideshare Program or the BAAQMD.
The ECC will register with the BAAQMD for the Spare the Air program to receive regional air
quality forecast bulletins about poor and unhealthy air quality days. Employees will receive hse
direct email updates encouraging the use of alternative transit modes during peak advisory
periods.
17.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING
The ArtX Hotel PTDM Plan intends to reduce SOV trips and, in so doing, lessen the resulting
parking issues, traffic congestion, and mobile source-related air pollution. It is essential to
ensure PTDM measures are implemented and effective; therefore, a monitoring program is
necessary. Because the PTDM Program is performance-based to reduce vehicle trips, an annual
five-day survey commute program evaluation will allow the hotel and the City to assess its
effectiveness and adjust, as necessary, to meet the trip reduction goals.
Annual Five-day Employee Commute Survey
A five-day commute survey will be a critical part of the monitoring process to evaluate and
ensure PTDM measures' success. By default, employees who do not participate in the
commute survey will count as drive-alone or SOV commuters. This default mechanism will
result in conservative results. The applicant will strongly encourage, support, and participate in
the annual employee survey's promotion and marketing.
Survey data will guide PTDM marketing and the ECC's efforts to maintain the project's 30
percent alternative commute mode-use rate and commitment at the site. At that point, the
2.h
Packet Pg. 104
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 30
PTDM program could be re-tooled, if
necessary, to maintain the project's
alternative commute mode-use
promotions and trip reduction
commitment at the site.
Annual Commute Summary Report
Each year, the hotel and CC, via employee
survey data, will prepare an annual PTDM
summary report to be submitted to the
City to document the effectiveness of the
PTDM Plan in achieving the goals of
alternative mode-use and 30 percent trip
reduction by employees. The PTDM summary report will include determining historical
employee commute methods provided by information obtained from a survey of all employees
working in the buildings. The summarized results from the employee survey will provide
quantitative data (e.g., mode split) and qualitative data (e.g., employee perception of the
alternative transportation programs).
If the trip reduction rates perform below requirements, the report will explain how and why
goals were unmet. It will specify additional measures and activities implemented in the coming
year to improve the mode-use rate.
The initial annual employee survey (and subsequent surveys) will be in the fourth quarter of
each year. The table below shows a sample summary matrix of an employee commute survey.
Employee Commuter Mode Percent
Carpooler 13.67%
Transit rider 7.29%
Bicycle 2.98%
Walk/pedestrian 0.80%
Telecommuter 0.23%
Motorcycle/scooter 0.56%
Compressed workweek (9/8/80)2.58%
Vanpooler 1.67%
Total Commuter Rate 29.78%
2.h
Packet Pg. 105
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 31
SECTION IV – GUEST PTDM PROGRAMS
18.0 GUEST TRANSPORTATION
Pre-loaded Clipper Cards
The hotel will purchase pre-loaded Clipper Cards with various monetary
values to be made available for purchase by guests who need transit travel
cards. This convenience feature will allow transit riders to easily access
any region's transit services without learning the various and different fare
media options for individual agencies.
Promote Car-Free Travel Packages
The ArtX Hotel will offer a Car Free Package featuring discounts and car-
free activities. Visitors can arrive by taxi/Uber/Lyft, train, plane, bike, boat, van, walk, bus,
shuttle and enjoy discounts on hotel stays and car-free activities. A program early bonus may
include visitors receiving a Caltrain pass for each night of their stay. (Restrictions apply.)
By mentioning the "The ArtX Car-Free Vacation Package" when making a reservation, visitors
will receive significant 10-50% discounts off regular room rates (some restrictions apply, rooms
subject to availability). Then, upon hotel check-in, guests will receive a CAR FREE-bies gift
envelope with maps, luggage tags, and a list of special activity discounts for the bikeshare
program, Zipcar use, tours, bay cruises, bike trips, trolley sightseeing tours, catamaran cruises,
rollerblade or scooter rentals, and wine country excursions.
Trained Reservation Staff
The hotel will provide training for reservation staff. They are familiar and knowledgeable to
guests about transit options, local train or bus schedules and routes, and on-road bicycle
facilities. In addition to any concierge, the reservation staff can act as local
transportation/travel agents for hotel guests.
Hotel Confirmation Email
As part of the booking confirmation process, the hotel will include information about reaching
the hotel if guests will not use a vehicle during their stay. This information will provide
transportation resources links for trip planning and transit schedules and the hotel shuttle(s)
services.
Getting Around Palo Alto Brochure
Each guest room will include a brochure and map that shows how to navigate the local area by
transit, bike, or carshare. These brochures will lay out various transportation options to engage
and encourage guests to choose a non-driving option.
2.h
Packet Pg. 106
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 32
Employee and Guest On-demand Shuttle
The hotel will operate an on-demand shuttle for guests to nearby employment areas in Palo
Alto and the Stanford Research Park.
This shuttle will provide access to a nearby business
and various Caltrain stations. This guest and employee
shuttle will offer possible connections to off-site
working demands with greater guest convenience and
last-mile service for hotel employees.
ArtX Hotel
2.h
Packet Pg. 107
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 33
SECTION V – GUEST AND EMPLOYEE (DUAL) PTDM PROGRAMS
19.0 GUEST AND EMPLOYEE (DUAL) PTDM PROGRAMS
Paid Parking
The hotel project will implement a guest and employee parking program to encourage
alternative transportation modes. The project may charge $20 per day per parking space.
Employees who carpool and vanpool to work will receive free parking. Research has repeatedly
shown that one of the most significant factors in selecting a transportation mode is parking
costs.
Valet Attendant Parking
As a component of the project, 100 percent of the parking will be 24/7 valet attendant parking
to address hotel vehicle parking management. The valet will manage traffic flow in and around
the garage and ease parking constraints. Valet parking will ensure the hotel accommodates
parking demand during regular peak-hour periods by expanding its lot capacity. Stacked
parking plans indicate that The ArtX Hotel will include five aisle spaces as part of the available
parking through the valet program. Below is an image of the parking garage.
2.h
Packet Pg. 108
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 34
Passenger Loading/Unloading Zone
A passenger loading zone facilitates disembarking and
embarking guests and rideshare passengers. The hotel
passenger loading zone will be near a centralized
location for easy access by the hotel guests, shuttle
riders, and staff.
The project will provide the appropriate signage for this
facility. A secondary vehicle drop-off and retrieval
location will be located in the underground garage for
peak hours to prevent queuing onto public streets.
20.0 ON-SITE AND NEARBY AMENITIES
Amenities provide employees with a full-service work
environment. They are eliminating or reducing the need
for an automobile to make midday trips increases non-drive-alone rates. Employees often
perceive their dependence upon the drive-alone mode because of errands and activities
outside of work. By reducing this dependence through the provision of services and facilities at
the worksite. A list of on-site amenities for The ArtX Hotel includes:
On-site Amenities
• Showers and changing facilities
• Bicycle racks and lockers (or cage)
• Carpool/vanpool parking
• Electric vehicle charging facilities
• Transportation and commute kiosk
• Exercise/fitness room
• Wireless access
• Transportation resource Weblinks
• Vending food and beverages
Employer-Driven Amenities (required)
• Transit subsidies and vanpool subsidies (up to $150 per month or equivalent)
• 100% funded vanpool program
• Emergency Ride Home (ERH) program
• $50 monthly allowances or bike, walk, and carpool commuters
• Employee Commute Coordinator
• Promotional commuter campaigns (transit, carpool, bicycle, and pedestrian)
• Carpool matching services and incentives
• Bicycle route mapping resources
• Transit trip planning resources
• Commuter bicycles for employees
2.h
Packet Pg. 109
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 35
Employer-Driven Amenities (encouraged)
• Pre-tax transit or vanpool payroll deduction option
• VTA SmartPass program
• Annual carshare membership
• Annual bike-share membership
On-Site and Nearby Amenities
• Restaurants, cafes/delis, coffee
• Daycare and preschool
• Retail, grocery, personal services, shipping, and gifts
• Entertainment and health/beauty
• Banks and ATMs
Provided as an attachment is a more detailed list of nearby amenities and personal services
within a ¼-mile walk from the project.
Transportation/Commute Kiosks (TransitScreen)
Easily accessible transportation information will be a crucial
component for commuter outreach and education and hotel
guest services. The applicant will provide two options for
users to obtain commuter materials.
A transportation trip planning resource in the form of a
public-use computer station will be in a common gathering
area (e.g., lobby employee entrance, break, or lunchroom).
The kiosk will provide access to transportation information,
such as transit schedules, VTA, Caltrain, bike maps, and 511 ridematching.
Hotel Bicycle Program
The hotel project will implement a hotel bicycle program
that allows guests and staff to use hotel-branded bicycles.
Hotel bikes are available for errands, site-seeing trips, or
business purposes.
2.h
Packet Pg. 110
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 36
SECTION VI – OPTIONAL PTDM BENEFITS
21.0 OPTIONAL PTDM BENEFITS
Membership in Palo Alto TMA
Although the project is not in the downtown Palo Alto
center, it may join the Palo Alto Transportation
Management Association as an affiliate member if
future opportunities allow. TMA membership will show community engagement and support
the TMA as it develops to serve residents and commuters.
VTA Transit Shelter Adopt-a-Stop
Outreach efforts of the applicant may include participation in the
VTA Adopt-a-Stop Program. This program partners with volunteers
to clean their designated bus stop regularly. Participation efforts
will involve picking up litter, reporting damage and or graffiti, and
generally keeping the area around the stop free of debris and
unsightly clutter.
VTA may install an adoption sign at the stop recognizing the
application as a program participant. Once the project is under
construction, the applicant will sign up for the VTA Adopt-a-Stop
program to maintain the bus stop nearest the site on El Camino
Real.
2.h
Packet Pg. 111
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 37
City of Palo Alto Bike Share Program
If desired and feasible, the project will integrate
with the Palo Alto Bike Share program (if available)
by establishing a bike share station at or near the
hotel.
A bike-sharing system usually consists of a fleet of
specially designed, heavy-duty, very durable bikes
locked into a network of docking stations located
throughout a region. Some fleets may be dockless.
Bikes can be rented from and returned to any
station in the system, creating an efficient network
with many possible combinations of start and
endpoints.
2.h
Packet Pg. 112
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 38
Carshare Program
A Carshare program expands mobility options for guests, visitors, and employees. Those who
use transit, shuttles, vanpool/carpool, or bikes would have access to a self-service hourly car
rental program offering short-term access to a vehicle(s) for personal use. If the City wishes to
pursue a public Zipcar resource near the Hotel project, the applicant will support this effort.
Zipcar provides a shared neighborhood community or
business vehicle(s) program. Zipcar users sign up to
become members with a nominal annual fee and
application fee. The vehicle is then reserved online and
accessed via a card key pass system. Included in the Zipcar
cost are fuel and insurance. Typically mileage is allocated
at 180 miles per day.
Benefits – guests and employees
• Provides travel/transportation options for those without vehicles
• Saves customers additional mobility costs for occasional travel needs (taxi/Uber)
• Provides a convenient on-site resource
• Offers flexible, self-serve, online registration process with advanced registration
• Carshare membership may also provide access to off-site carshare resources
Benefits – hotel
• Reduces on-site vehicle parking demand
• Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
• Satisfies customer's needs for a short-term, weekday travel option
• Enhances overall trip reduction goals, integrates with existing resources
• Vendor Carshare programs are all-inclusive (maintenance, cleaning, insurance, and fuel)
• May offer opportunity to brand vehicles with hotel graphics
Hotel-funded Annual Carshare Membership
Access to occasional transportation may be a barrier for employees when considering a transit
commute. Employees who have a mid-shift doctor appointment or teacher conference may
need the ability to drive themselves. The hotel will provide paid memberships for employees
who want to participate in the hotel carshare program. Membership will allow employees to
participate in the carshare program, but they will pay for the cost of driving the vehicle for their
trip.
2.h
Packet Pg. 113
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 39
Proposed Palo Alto City West Shuttle
The applicant may provide an annual
contribution to the Palo Alto Shuttle program for
the future West Shuttle route to create a public
benefit for the community. Below is a map of the
proposed Palo Alto community shuttle routes.
2.h
Packet Pg. 114
ArtX Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – PTDM Plan October 4, 2018 (April 20, 2021)
Page 40
22.0 CONCLUSION
The ArtX Hotel PTDM Plan meets the project's specific needs, considering logistical resources
and opportunities at the site. From conception, the applicant was committed to an integrated
project design that enhanced pedestrian and community opportunities.
This PTDM Plan provides specific elements, measures, and actions that commit the applicant to
implementation. The orientation of PTDM features for this project will increase pedestrian,
bicycle, carpool, transit, and shuttle buses.
The PTDM Plan is performance-based and directs the applicant and hotel to incorporate
programs and employee benefits that create a formal commute program. Commute program
marketing, ongoing promotions, annual survey and reporting, and a Transportation Coordinator
will provide the synergism needed to implement a successful commuter program for future
project employees and reduce peak-hour vehicle trips by 30 percent.
The language included in this PTDM Plan provides specific guidance for the applicant to
implement and develop commuter programs. It outlines the steps necessary (infrastructure,
outreach, and promotions) to incorporate employee transportation benefits and programs.
Annual monitoring via surveys will provide the data needed to demonstrate effectiveness and
goal attainment and requires the applicant to identify additional PTDM measures and programs
they would implement if the goal is unmet.
The applicant is committed to encouraging employee ridership and the use of alternative
transportation modes. This PTDM Plan provides the details of the applicant's commitment to
the City of Palo Alto and designates responsibility for implementation.
The ArtX Hotel supports the City of Palo Alto's policy of focusing clustered development along
major transportation corridors and reinforcing the City of Palo Alto's Green goals and practices.
By balancing air quality with economic growth, The ArtX Hotel will help Palo Alto thrive as a
community. It is projects like these that will contribute to the City of Palo Alto's future
livelihood.
2.h
Packet Pg. 115
ATTACHMENT
List of Nearby Amenities
(Personal services, restaurants, coffee, retail/sundry, banking, etc.)
Case Studies – Successful Hotel Projects that Reduce Vehicle Trips
2.h
Packet Pg. 116
List of Nearby List of Nearby/Offsite Amenities Located 0.30 or Less Miles
ArtX (4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto)
Restaurants, Cafes/Delis, Coffee, and Bakeries Phone # Distance Away
Su Hong
4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-493-4664 0
Hobee's Palo Alto
4224 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-856-6124 0.10 mile
Dinah's Poolside Restaurant
4261 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-798-1314 0.10 mile
The Sea by Alexander's Steakhouse
4269 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-213-1111 0.10 mile
Retail Phone # Distance Away
Peninsula Piano Brokers
4333 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-492-4220 0.20 mile
Health, Beauty & Fitness Phone # Distance Away
New York Nail & Spa
4222 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-384-6878 0.10 mile
Massage Envy
4335 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-305-3464 0.30 mile
Forever Young Salon
1184 Los Altos Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-948-0153 0.30 mile
Services Phone # Distance Away
Spotless Dry Cleaning
1176 Los Altos Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-949-0832 0.30 mile
Transportation, Gas, Shipping & Storage Phone # Distance Away
Avis Car Rental
4230 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-493-8888 0.10 mile
America's Tire
4200 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-382-5193 0.20 mile
Banks & ATM Phone # Distance Away
Union Bank
4201 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-941-2000 0.30 mile
AFFA, Inc (ATM)
4290 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 351 ft.
Daycare/Preschool Phone # Distance Away
Palo Alto Preschool
4232 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-739-0137 492 ft.
Edgewood House Preschool
493 W Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA 0.30 mile
2.h
Packet Pg. 117
Case Studies – Successful Hotel Projects that Reduce Vehicle Trips
2.h
Packet Pg. 118
Grand Hyatt New York has met the Standard of Excellence and is designated a Best Workplace for Commuters by offering a significant Pre-Tax Transit Benefit program to employees. Grand Hyatt provides employees with a diverse package of Commuter Benefits that improve quality of life and help support work-life challenges. Over 30% of employees at Grand Hyatt New York take advantage of their tax
saving transit program.
Grand Hyatt New York has been providing Green Commuter Benefits for seven years. Recently, they rolled-out a Bike-to-Work program with funding through CommuterLink/NY Rideshare’s NYCCE (New York City Commute Enhancement) Grant. They purchased and installed a bike rack and security gate and encouraged cyclists to ride in with a gift card prize to purchase equipment. Employees were able to enjoy riding to work during the warmer months and park their bike securely.
Working to encourage improved air quality and green initiatives, Grand Hyatt takes pride in consistently providing employees with opportunities to participate in positive earth-friendly events, such as the American Lung Association’s Fight For Air Climb being held this November.
Source: https://www.bestworkplaces.org/list-of-bwc-workplaces/grand-hyatt-new-york/
Hilton Garden Inn Arlington, Shirlington, VA
Christopher Ng is the General Manager of the Hilton Garden
Inn, a select service hotel in the trendy Village of Shirlington
in South Arlington County, VA and he shares proudly, “We were the first LEED Certified hotel in
Arlington County when we opened in December 2009.” The commuter benefits program started at once
when the hotel was opened. During the hiring process, commuter benefits are highlighted as the most
economical and environmentally friendly way to get to and from work. Christopher reports that,
currently, 33 team members (out of 48 total) take advantage of the commuter benefits offered.
On tips to get more employees to participate, Christopher added, “Team members are always going to
be receptive to practices that save them money. Throw in the fact that they are going to eco-friendly
and there’s no reason why they wouldn’t participate in your commuter benefits program.”
Source: https://www.bestworkplaces.org/bwc-employer-spotlight/bwc-spotlight-hilton-garden-inn-
arlington-shirlington-va/
2.h
Packet Pg. 119
From: Lydia F. Shackelford <lfshackelford@wellsandassociates.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 5:38 AM
To: Elizabeth Hughes <elizabeth.hughes@TDMSPECIALISTS.COM>
Subject: RE: [Transp-tdm] Seeking Successful Hotel TDM Case Studies
I wanted to reach out and let you know about a few things we do for some of the hotels we work with in
Fairfax County. They are a little larger than your 80-100 room request below, but not by much.
The first hotel we work with is a Hyatt House in Mosaic. It has a somewhat of an extended stay vibe,
since they have a lot of people who come for conferences or even months at a time when they are here
on assignment for work. However, they also operate on a nightly rate basis as well. The hotel is part of
our Mosaic Green Commute program (www.mosaicgreencommute.com), and we extend our services to
their employees (who take part of our annual commute survey for the property) as well as their guests.
For employees, we provide them with an Access Guide and one-on-one commute assistance whenever
they need it. The Access Guide reviews all of the commute options to Mosaic and gives them
information about regional commute assistance programs, like the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, so
they are fully aware of all of their choices. We also gather information from them annually with our
survey to see what their current commute looks like and match them to as many alternative commutes
as possible (if they are currently driving alone). If they are currently using a non-SOV mode of
transportation to get to work, we make sure we include them in our “regular user” marketing campaigns
to encourage them to continue using their non-SOV commute of choice. We do this through our
automated marketing tool, Compass and one-on-one (non-automated) marketing as well.
For guests, they also have an Access Guide to the entire Mosaic property, letting them know about the
many amenities the immediate area provides them with, so they can enjoy that during their stay. The
hotel provides them with the access choices to the hotel ahead of time at booking, meaning once they
book, they’re provided with the various ways they can get to and from the hotel from the nearby
airports, train stations, etc. The hotel also offers a complimentary shuttle for its guests to help them get
around without the need of a rental car during their stay.
Mosaic has a goal of 5% non-SOV mode split, and that site is just under a mile from its closest transit
station.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Hyatt Regency Tysons Corner Center, we do not focus on their guests as much, but we do extend
our Access Tysons (www.accesstysons.com) program to the hotel employees. We do the same
marketing noted above with the Access Guides and one-on-one marketing that we do at Mosaic, and we
also attend their monthly new hire orientations to extend our services and assistance to their
employees. We offered to do this for the Mosaic employees as well, but they have less frequent
orientations, and they are often not at their hotel.
Tysons Corner Center has a goal of a 25% non-SOV mode split, and that site is directly on top of Metro/is
a TOD.
Both locations have a mode-split goal associated with their proffered requirements, meaning their
proffers note that a certain percentage of the employees of these hotels should be using a non-SOV
mode of transportation to get to work in order to meet their goal. We gather this information with our
2.h
Packet Pg. 120
annual surveys and report on it annually to the county. We have never missed their goals in the years
we have implemented these programs and provided these services at these sites.
I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
Lydia
Lydia F. Shackelford | Senior Associate
WELLS + ASSOCIATES
1420 Spring Hill Road, Suite 610 | Tysons, VA 22102
D: 703.676.3629 | M: 203.417.6179 | O: 703.917.6620
Web | Blog | LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook
An employee-owned company for over 25 years.
2.h
Packet Pg. 121
APPENDIX A
Parking Study for the Proposed
Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto
2.h
Packet Pg. 122
Memorandum
Date: October 16, 2017
To: Mr. Rajen Shah, Comfort Inn Palo Alto
From: Michelle Hunt Ricky Williams
Subject: Parking Study for the Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a parking study for the proposed Comfort Inn remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California. The project site is located on the east
side of El Camino Real, midblock between Ventura Avenue and El Camino Way. Currently, the hotel has 69 rooms and 60 parking spaces, including 57 standard spaces and 3 accessible spaces. The remodeling project would increase the size of the existing lobby by removing two rooms. The
remodel would not change the number of parking spaces on site but would modify the parking layout to include 22 compact spaces, 35 standard spaces, and 3 accessible spaces. Thus, the proposed project would result in 67 rooms and 60 parking spaces. Both the existing and proposed on-site parking do not meet the City of Palo Alto’s parking requirement of one space per guestroom (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52.040). The purpose of this memo is to determine the adequacy of the proposed on-site parking lot to serve the hotel’s parking demand. This memo provides an analysis of the peak parking demand at the existing Comfort Inn and the peak parking demand observed at similar hotels and motels in the area. These surveyed parking ratios at area hotels were used to estimate the number of parking spaces necessary to serve the project.
Peak Parking Demand
Hexagon conducted peak parking counts at thirteen comparable hotels and motels in Palo Alto and nearby cities to determine the peak parking demand per occupied room. The number of vehicles parked at each hotel and motel were counted at midnight on two to three typical days. The hotel management were contacted to determine the number of rooms occupied on each survey date. These lodgings were chosen because they are similar in location to the Comfort Inn and serve primarily business travelers.
Based on the peak parking counts conducted at the surveyed hotels/motels, parking demand was consistently found to be below the City’s code requirement of one space per room (see Table 1).
The average parking demand at the thirteen locations was determined to be 0.66 occupied spaces per occupied room. Hotel/motel occupancy at the time of the counts was between 90 and 100 percent at most sites. The trend of ride-sharing gaining in market share and a decline in the use of
rental cars may partially explain why there is less than one vehicle parked per occupied room. Hexagon conducted a count of the number of vehicles parked at the existing Comfort Inn at
midnight during three typical weekdays (September 26-28, 2017). The count data is attached. The hotel owner also provided data on the number of rooms occupied on the date of the counts (see
2.h
Packet Pg. 123
3945 El Camino Real - Comfort Inn Parking Study October 16, 2017
P a g e | 2
Table 1). The peak parking demand for the Comfort Inn was found to be 0.62 occupied spaces per
occupied room, which is slightly less than the typical peak parking demand observed at other hotels/motels in the area.
Proposed Parking Supply
The proposed project would have 67 rooms and 60 parking spaces on site following the remodel for
a parking ratio of 0.90 spaces per room. Based on the City’s parking standards, the remodeled Comfort Inn would be required to provide 67 parking spaces (one space per guestroom). The proposed project would be seven spaces short of this requirement. Although the on-site parking would not meet the City’s code requirement, parking occupancy counts at the existing Comfort Inn and other comparable hotels in the area indicate that the proposed parking would meet the projected parking demand. The average parking ratio observed at comparable hotels/motels (0.66 occupied spaces per occupied room) was used to estimate the proposed project’s peak parking demand. This is a conservative assumption since the parking counts at the existing Comfort Inn revealed that it experiences a slightly lower parking ratio (averaging 0.62 occupied spaces per occupied room). Assuming 100 percent occupancy of 67 rooms, the project is expected to experience a peak parking demand of 45 vehicles after the remodel. As proposed, the project would provide 15 more parking spaces than the projected peak parking demand. Therefore, the 60 parking spaces provided is expected to be more than adequate
to serve the site.
Transportation Demand Management
In an effort to further reduce the peak parking demand on site and to support a lower parking ratio, the project would implement various transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. These strategies would reduce the need for employees to park on site as well as allow travelers to get from the hotel to various destinations without requiring a vehicle of their own. These strategies are described below:
Transit Subsidy. The project would provide monthly bus passes to employees who wish to commute using public transportation. VTA bus stops are located immediately adjacent to the
project’s El Camino Real frontage, providing transit services via Local Route 22. This route provides northbound and southbound service between the Palo Alto Transit Center and Eastridge Transit Center on 15-minute headways during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Taxi or Ride-Share Subsidy. The project would provide guests with a $5 subsidy for rides using a local taxi service or Uber ride-shares. The project already has a working relationship
with a local taxi service to support this subsidy.
Bicycle Parking. The project will provide 9 bicycle racks, which will provide 18 Class II bicycle
parking spaces to encourage employees to bike to work. Employees also may use bicycling as a last-mile connection between the project site and the California Avenue or San Antonio Caltrain stations, which are approximately 1.5 and 2 miles from the project site, respectively.
The TDM strategies listed above and additional measures the hotel will take to reduce parking demand on-site are described in further detail in the projects Transportation Demand Management Plan, produced by Hexagon and dated 10/12/2017.
2.h
Packet Pg. 124
3945 El Camino Real - Comfort Inn Parking Study October 16, 2017
P a g e | 3
Conclusions
Based on parking counts from similar hotels and motels, and the existing parking occupancy
observed at the Comfort Inn, the proposed project would be adequately served by the parking provided on site. After remodel, full occupancy of 67 rooms is estimated to result in a peak parking demand of 45 vehicles, which would be well served by the 60 spaces provided on site. In addition,
the project will implement TDM strategies that would discourage the use of a personal automobile.
2.h
Packet Pg. 125
3945 El Camino Real - Comfort Inn Parking Study October 16, 2017
P a g e | 4
Table 1
Hotel/Motel Peak Parking Demands
Hotel City Rooms
Hotel
Occ.1
Pkg
Spaces
Occ.
Spaces
per Occ.
Room
Hotel
Occ.1
Pkg
Spaces
Occ.
Spaces
per Occ.
Room
Hotel
Occ.1
Pkg
Spaces
Occ.
Spaces
per Occ.
Room Dining Options
Los Prados 2 San Mateo 116 92%55 0.52 95%52 0.47 91%58 0.55 0.51 Complementary Breakfast
Bay Landing 3 Burlingame 130 95%76 0.62 96%72 0.58 95%78 0.63 0.61 Complementary Breakfast
Hilton Garden Inn 3 San Mateo 157 99%64 0.41 98%68 0.44 99%67 0.43 0.43 The Garden Grille & Bar, Pavilion Pantry
Hilton Garden Inn 3 Burlingame 132 94%46 0.37 96%44 0.35 79%49 0.47 0.40 Great American Grill, Pavilion Pantry
Holiday Inn 4 Belmont 82 79%39 0.60 83%55 0.81 n/a n/a n/a 0.71 Complementary Breakfast
Fairfield Inn & Suites 5 San Carlos 120 68%66 0.80 58%88 1.28 n/a n/a n/a 1.04 Complementary Breakfast
Hilton Garden Inn 6 Mt View 160 97%115 0.74 98%125 0.80 n/a n/a n/a 0.77 The Garden Grille & Bar, Pavilion Pantry
Sheraton Inn 6 Sunnyvale 173 72%88 0.70 95%146 0.89 n/a n/a n/a 0.80 Faz Restaurant & Lounge
Courtyard Marriott 6 Sunnyvale 145 57%55 0.67 99%107 0.74 n/a n/a n/a 0.71 The Bistro
Aloft Hotel 7 Cupertino 123 100%76 0.62 98%67 0.55 n/a n/a n/a 0.59 Restaurant, Café, & Lounge
Super 8 8 Palo Alto 36 100%24 0.67 100%22 0.61 100%21 0.58 0.62 Complementary Breakfast
Quality Inn 8 Palo Alto 50 100%36 0.72 100%35 0.70 100%43 0.86 0.76 Complementary Breakfast
Zen Hotel 8 Palo Alto 37 95%23 0.66 100%28 0.76 100%24 0.65 0.69 Complementary Breakfast
0.66
Comfort Inn 9 Palo Alto 69 100%43 0.62 100%46 0.67 97%39 0.58 0.62 Complementary Breakfast
Notes
1. Hotel Occupancy represents the percentage of rooms occupied at the time of the count
2. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 3/7-9/2017
3. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 5/16-18/2017
4. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 3/30/2016 and 4/2/2016.
5. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 4/7/2016 and 4/9/2016.
6. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 4/30/2016 and 5/2/2016.
7. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 6/11/2014 and 6/14/2014.
8. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 8/26-28/2013
9. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 9/26-28/2017. Not included in the calculation of average parking rates for all comparable hotels.
Avg.
Spaces
per Occ.
Room
Count 1 Count 2 Count 3
Average Rate for All Comparable Hotels:
2.h
Packet Pg. 126
Auto-Census
Counter: Matt Tyrell
Location - Comfort Inn 3945 ECR Palo Alto
Dates: September 26-28, 2017
Parking Occupancy
26-Sep 43
27-Sep 46
28-Sep 39
2.h
Packet Pg. 127
TDM SPECIALISTS, INC. QUALIFICATIONS
2.h
Packet Pg. 128
2.h
Packet Pg. 129
2.h
Packet Pg. 130
ATTACHMENT I
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the
public online.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll to find “4256 ECR – Parking Revision” 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-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/4256-El-
Camino-Real-21PLN-00034
2.i
Packet Pg. 131
TO: HONORABLE ARCHTEICTURAL REVIEW BOARD
FROM: JODIE GERHARDT, MANAGER OF CURRENT PLANNING
DATE: MAY 6, 2021
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 2 - PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 4256 El Camino Real
[21PLN-00034]: Request for Changes to an Approved Project to Revise the
Underground Garage Parking and Clarify the Director's Parking Adjustment.
Environmental Assessment: Use of a Previous EIR. Zone District: CS (Service
Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel
Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org.
Following are clarifications to the staff report and draft conditions of approval for the subject
project, as shown in track changes.
Packet Page 9
Project Information
Owner: Catherine Huang Huang
Architect: Studio T Square Lowney Architecture
Representative: Randy Popp
Legal Counsel: N/A Camas Steinmetz, Aaronson Dickerson Cohn & Lanzone
Packet Page 13, 1st paragraph
The Director’s adjustment is calculated based on the total required parking for the site, which is
one parking space per guest room. The project has a total of 96 guest rooms, 15% of 96 spaces is
a 14 space reduction. At this rate, the project was granted a 15% reduction to and allows for valet
spaces, which are on-demand spaces rather than static spaces. During the previous review of the
approved project, the aisle parking spaces were intended to providing greater flexibility than
standard spaces. The aisle parking allowing the project to reduce its dependence on lifts and
removed the need to provide a additional three-level garage levels while still having the capacity
of a fully parked project.
Packet Page 16, 1st paragraph
Requirement to Provide Showers
The project is also required to provide showers for employees as the hotel use is defined as a
retail-like use within PAMC 18.04.030(a)(125.1)(B). Employee showers are required for all new
buildings constructed over 24,999 sf when a retail service, personal service, or eating & drinking
service uses are present. The project has over 50,000 sf in floor area and is considered a retail
service (“retail-like”, PAMC 18.04.030(a)(125.1)(B)), which requires two showers for employees
per PAMC 18.16.060(j) Table 6. Additionally, the previously approved TDM plan includes bicycle
parking and shower facilities as part of the TDM infrastructure to achieve the required 30% trip
reduction. The employee showers must be included in the project in a feasible location on-site
and are shown in the proposed plans within the garage-level employee breakbathroom area.
Packet Page 54 to 56 (Attachment E) Draft Conditions of Approval
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved
plans entitled, "ArtX Hotel HXH PROPERTY, LCC,” stamped as received by the City on March
10April 8, 2021, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California
except as modified by these conditions of approval.
6. AMENDMENT TO DIRECTOR’S PARKING ADJUSTMENT. The proposal includes a request for a
Director’s adjustment to the minimum parking requirement for the site of 96 parking spaces. The
adjustment results in the net reduction of 14 parking spaces, for a total of 72 standard/lift parking
spaces. While valet parking spaces applied towards the required minimum, the project will
provide an additional 5 parking spaces via valet aisle parking, bringing the project to a total of 77
parking spaces. Noting that PAMC 18.52.040(b)(8) requires accessible parking spaces count as at
least two standard automobile parking spaces for the purposes of the parking required for the
site. In accordance with PAMC 18.52.050, a Director’s Adjustment of 15% of the total parking
requirement is approved in accordance with the approved Revised Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan dated received April 29, 2021. No changes to the prior adjustment
Director’s adjustment allowing a reduction in the required dimensions for an off-street loading
area. This adjustment reduced the loading area to a size suited for a SU-30 truck type and is
retained for the project. The proposal includes revisions to a previously granted 15% Director’s
adjustment to the parking requirement of 96 parking spaces. The 15% adjustment results in a net
reduction of 14 parking spaces for a total requirement of 82 spaces. Note that PAMC
18.52.040(b)(8) requires accessible parking spaces count as two parking spaces when calculating
parking required for the site. As reflected in the approved plan set, 59 lift parking spaces, 8
standard spaces, 5 valet aisle parking spaces, combined with 5 accessible spaces (that count at
10 spaces) creates a compliant proposal with a total of 77 physical parking spaces and 82 code-
compliant spaces. Per PAMC 18.52.050, a Director’s Adjustment of 15% of the total parking
requirement is re-approved in combination with the Revised Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan dated April 20, 2021. No changes are proposed to the prior Director’s
adjustment allowing a reduction in the required dimensions for an off-street loading area,
located within the at-grade driveway, which reduced the loading area to a size suited for a SU-30
type truck.
7. MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING SYSTEM. In conformance with PAMC 18.54.020(b)(4)G, uUp to 59
of the required 77 parking spaces are approved to be provided in a mechanical lift parking system,
which allows independent access to each vehicle. The property owner and/or hotelier shall have
a maintenance agreement with the lift system manufacturer to ensure the system shall be
operational at all times. If the lift system is out of operation for any reason, anyone who is not
able to retrieve their vehicle within a 15-minute period shall be reimbursed by the property
owner or their designee for travel expenses up to $50 per occurrence.
8. VALET PARKING. The valet drop-off and pick-up area shall be located on the basement level.
Valet parking services shall be provided at all times (24 hours a day) on-site to ensure queuing of
cars is kept to a minimum and that efficient use of the mechanical parking lifts is achieved. To
the satisfaction of the Director, signage shall be posted informing visitors that valet parking is
required and that anyone who is not able to retrieve their vehicle within a 15-minute period due
to parking lift malfunction, are is to be reimbursed for travel expenses up to $50 per occurrence.
9. TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT: The applicant shall abide by the
Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “Analog ArtX Hotel Parking &
Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM), dated April 20, 2021 and received on April 29,
2021”, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. The TDM plan
includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the
site by a minimum of 30%, in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan
includes an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. The TDM
annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official. Monitoring and reporting
requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the
measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the required
reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule.
15. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine
substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division
final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not
limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner,
Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection.
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 12196)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/6/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Review of Boards and Commission Handbook
Title: Review the City of Palo Alto’s Boards, Commissions, and
Committees Handbook, and discuss implementation of its
contents
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Receive and review the City of Palo Alto’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Handbook;
2. Provide staff with direction on necessary changes to the ARB Bylaws.
Report Summary
This report summarizes some of the changes in protocol and practice required by the City
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook.
While the November 2020 edition is a draft version of the Handbook, and the formal version
will go to hearing on June 1st, Staff will start implementing these changes into ARB’s operations.
Background
On November 30, 2020, the City Council accepted a new City Boards, Commissions, and
Committees Handbook1 from Council’s Ad Hoc Committee. Their motion accepting the
Handbook also included proposed changes, such as allowing ARB members to serve three
terms. The City Manager’s Office and the City Clerk’s Office held a training with staff and Board
members in March 2021.
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=65426.43&BlobID=80213
3
Packet Pg. 132
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
The City Clerk is currently working on the necessary changes that are needed to incorporate this
Handbook into the Municipal Code. This new ordinance is likely to be heard at the Council June
1, 2021 hearing.
Important aspects of the Handbook that affect the ARB are summarized below.
Goal and Purpose of the ARB (Page 9)
The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning and
Development Services Director on design and related issues for certain new construction, and
changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multiple-family residential projects, as
described in the Municipal Code.
The Board's goals and purposes are to:
• Promote orderly and harmonious development of the City
• Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City
• Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements
• Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas
Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at
the same time, are considerate of each other
• To implement and enforce the city’s ordinances pertaining to architecture and design
Staff Liaison (Page 19)
Staff liaison(s) serve as the link between City staff, City Council, and Board members.
The staff liaison’s responsibilities include:
o Prepares the monthly meeting agendas.
o Coordinates, distributes, and post all agendas, ensuring public participation.
o Adjourns the meeting if there is a lack of quorum 15 minutes after start time.
o Facilitates the transmission of the ARB’s interests, concerns, and
recommendations to the City Manager and City Council.
o Provide staff reports to the Board seven days in advance of each meeting.
Council Liaison (Page 19)
Their principal function is to provide a wide range of information to the advisory body.
The ARB should act independently in formulating recommendations for the City Council
to consider.
It is improper for Council Liaisons to direct, guide, or unduly influence the policy
recommendations of the Commission.
ARB Members’ Responsibilities and Code of Conduct (Pages 8, 9, 22 & 26)
Annual mandatory review of the handbook.
o Submit signed review to staff liaison (Page 5 and City’s April 10th email).
Propose annual work plan for Council review and adoption.
3
Packet Pg. 133
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
Endeavor to attend all scheduled meetings. An attendance report will be submitted to
City Council annually.
If ARB members miss more than one-third of scheduled meetings, this will be reported
to Council and may result in removal from the ARB.
ARB members are held to a high standard as representatives of the community. ARB
members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, hostile body language,
disrespectful language or verbal attacks, intentional or unintentional, upon the
characters of others.
The City prohibits all forms of harassment and discrimination based upon protected
classifications.
The Chair is expected to intercede when another Board member violates the code of
conduct.
ARB members (and HRB members only) are eligible to serve three successive full terms
on the same board or commission (partial terms of two years or less do not count
towards limit). ARB members are ineligible to be reappointed to the same board or
commission for two years after expiration of the three successive full terms (as
amended by Council).
Terms are for three years and commence on November 1 (PAMC Sections 2.16 and
2.21). Residency is not required.
Letters of resignation must be addressed to City Council and submitted to the staff
liaison and City Clerk.
Chair Elections will occur at the beginning of the year.
Removal (Page 29)
ARB members serve at the pleasure of City Council. Council reserves the right to remove
one or more ARB members at any time for any reason.
ARB members are not entitled to any process in the event Council removes them from
service.
Work Plan / Annual Report (Page 20 & 33)
The ARB is expected to prepare an annual work plan by the second quarter of the
calendar year (June).
City Council will review the work plan and provide feedback annually at a dedicated City
Council meeting.
The work plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan, metrics of community
involvement in meetings, and activities included in the ARB’s work.
The handbook has a template for work plan development.
If new issues arise during the year, the work plan should be amended and forwarded to
Council for review and approval.
Public Meetings and Legal Requirements
ARB members should be aware of the Brown Act and Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.
3
Packet Pg. 134
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
ARB members should not participate in matters where they have a financial or other
significant non-financial interest. The City Attorney’s Office can assist with questions on
conflicts of interest.
ARB members should be attending AB 1234 training.
o One such course is available from the FPPC -
https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/public-officials-and-employees-rules-/ethics-
training.html
Many of the documents created by public officials are public record that must be made
available to a requester, unless an exception applies.
o This includes personal phone if a member conducts City business on the phone.
Be professional in your communications. If someone asks for public records, contact the
staff liaison promptly.
Media Inquiries and Social Media Use (Page 27)
Inform the chief communications officer of media inquiries. The chief communications
officer is available to provide advice and guidance.
The Chair can be the spokesperson or the chief communications officer is available to
field the media inquiry on behalf of the Chair.
Accepting an interview or providing a statement via email should be based on the
Chair’s comfort level with interacting with media.
Comments on behalf of the ARB should only include information about the
Commission’s role in the policy issue media is asking about.
Discourage sharing specific opinions on upcoming ARB discussions or commenting on
other ARB member social media posts on topics that the Commission is discussing.
Encourage attendance to the public meeting, rather than discussing in detail
Commission actions via social media.
The City Manager’s Office provided a training on the new handbook to ARB members on March
24, 2021. Chair and Vice Chair training was provided on March 31, 2021. The video was made
available to ARB members in an April 10, 2021 email.
Analysis2
The expectation is that Boards and Commissions will adapt to align their practices with the
Handbook. While some of the changes in the Handbook require legislation to be considered and
approved by the Council, some require changes in bylaws and other non-legislative changes.
2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission 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 recommended action.
3
Packet Pg. 135
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
Staff have reviewed the Handbook and compared its contents to the operations of the ARB.
Table 1, below, presents the differences between the Handbook and ARB current procedural
practices. Table 1 also recommends adjustments to implement the Handbook’s direction.
Table 1: Handbook v Current ARB Bylaws and Practices
Handbook Current ARB Practice Adjustment Recommended
Verbatim minutes are
discouraged.
Minutes are verbatim. Direct transcriptionist to
provide action summary
minutes.
An attendance report will be
submitted to Council every
year.
Current practice is to provide
attendance report at time of
re-appointment
consideration.
Staff will submit a yearly
attendance report to Council.
Boards and Commissions
need to submit an annual
work plan for Council
approval.
Typically, an annual report;
but no work plan submitted
to Council.
ARB to submit an annual work
plan for Council approval.
Staff liaison will adjourn the
meeting if there is a lack of
quorum 15 minutes after
start time.
Not specified how long the
ARB should wait for quorum
prior to commencement of a
meeting.
Staff liaison will adjourn the
meeting if there is a lack of
quorum 15 minutes after start
time.
Terms to begin on
November 1.
Terms begin on December 16. Council to make legislative
change to Palo Alto Municipal
Code Chapters 2.16 and 2.21.
Members are eligible to serve
three successive full terms on
the ARB (partial terms of two
years or less do not count
towards limit). Members are
ineligible to be reappointed
to the same board or
commission for two years
after expiration of the third
successive full term.
No term limit. Council to make legislative
change to Palo Alto Municipal
Code Chapters 2.16 and 2.21.
Letters of resignation must be
addressed to City Council and
submitted to staff liaison and
City Clerk.
Not specified. Future resignations shall be
addressed to City Council and
submitted to Staff Liaison and
City Clerk.
Chair election will occur at
the beginning of the year.
ARB Bylaws call for elections
in October.
Modify ARB Bylaws to have
elections at the beginning of
the year.
Mandatory training shall be Department staff provide Training was provided to ARB
3
Packet Pg. 136
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
provided to all board
members through a
collaboration between the
Offices of the City Attorney,
City Clerk, and City Manager.
orientation for new ARB
members. The proposed
training will be in addition to
the department training.
members on March 24, 2021.
Chair and Vice Chair training
was provided on March 31,
2021. The video will be made
available to ARB members.
It is recommended the ARB direct the staff liaison return later this year to modify the ARB
Bylaws so elections take place at the beginning of each year, starting January 2022. For
reference, the current Chair and Vice Chair elections were postponed from October to
December 2020 for a variety of reasons, so their terms started January 2021.
Lastly, all ARB members are required to sign a yearly statement confirming that they have read
the handbook and will follow its guidelines. Staff will coordinate the signed statement via
DocuSign.
Environmental Review
This report is not a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information
Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: November 2020 Boards & Commissions Handbook (PDF)
3 Emails may be sent to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 137
Edition Date: November 2020
CITY BOARDS,
COMMISSIONS, AND
COMMITTEES HANDBOOK
| A Reference Guide
3.a
Packet Pg. 138
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
Mandatory Review Requirement 5
About the City 6
City Council 7
II. Appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Information on Appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees 8
Limit of Terms 8
III. Your Role as a Board, Commission, or Committee Member (BCC)
Role of All Members 17
Role and Responsibilities of the Chair 18
Required Training 19
Role of the Staff Liaison(s) 19
Role of Council Liaison 19
Use of Sub-Committees and Ad Hoc Committees 20
Annual Work Plan and Performance Measures 20
Procedures for Conduct of BCC Meetings 20
Agenda and Order of Business 21
Parliamentary Procedure and Motion to Reconsider 21
Code of Conduct 22
Meeting Management 25
Attendance 26
Late Arrival to Meetings 26
Absences 27
Minutes 27
Addressing the Media and the Public 27
IV. City Policies and Procedures
Swearing In and Oath of Office 28
Form 700 Obligation and Conflict of Interest 28
Ethics Trainings 28
Removal 29
3.a
Packet Pg. 139
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 4
V. Ralph M. Brown Act
General Overview 30
Meeting Agendas 30
Avoid Unlawful Meetings 30
Public Participation 31
VI. Conclusion ` 32
VII. Exhibit A: Workplan Template 33
3.a
Packet Pg. 140
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 5
MANDATORY REVIEW REQUIREMENT
The Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCC) Handbook is a reference guide that applies to
advisory and regulatory bodies. It is intended to provide an overview of basic laws and procedures
during a member's term and to clarify the role and responsibilities of the Board, Commission, and
Committee members in relation to the City Council, City staff and the public.
I , confirm that:
• I was provided with a copy of the BCC Handbook upon my appointment to a Palo Alto Board, Commission,
and Committee.
• I have read the entire Handbook, including any updates as of the signing of this document, reviewing each
section including:
• Requirements to be a member of a Board, Commission, and Committee
• Ethics Training (AB1234)
• Legal (Brown Act, Conflict of Interest, Political Reform Act)
• Role and Responsibilities
• Code of Conduct
• I agree to follow the guidelines and regulations provided in this Handbook, as required by the California
Government Codes (including the Brown Act), Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations, and the
Municipal Code, as well as any other required policies/statutes. In the event there is a conflict between state
or federal law and this Handbook, state or federal law shall govern. In the event there is a conflict between
this Handbook and any procedure adopted by a BCC, this Handbook shall govern.
• I understand that the BCC Handbook is intended as a tool to provide guidance on process and procedures as
well as to draw my attention to the primary rules of serving on a BCC under the guidance of the City Council.
• No legal advice is intended through this Handbook.
• It is my responsibility to re-visit this Handbook through my term to review protocol and regulations, and for
guidance.
• I am invited to consult with the Staff Liaison, City Clerk, and City Attorney any time I have questions or
concerns relating to these guidelines and my service.
Signature Date
I serve on the following BCC .
This page is due to the City Clerk's Department within 60-days of appointment. Ethics training completed on
(date)
Thank you for your attention to this important information and your responsibility as a BCC Member.
I. INTRODUCTION
3.a
Packet Pg. 141
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 6
ABOUT THE CITY
Palo Alto, known as the “Birthplace of Silicon Valley,” is home to 69,700 residents and nearly doubles during the
day with an influx of employees from major employers. Unique among city organizations, the City of Palo Alto
operates a full array of services including its own gas, electric, water, sewer, refuse and storm drainage provided
at very competitive rates for its customers. The City of Palo Alto offers robust community amenities including 36
parks, 39 playgrounds, five community and youth centers, 41 miles of walking/biking trails and five libraries. The
City also manages a regional airport and provides fire, police and emergency services. Palo Alto is an award-
winning City recognized nationally as innovative and well-managed, one of a small number of California cities
with a AAA bond rating. City services and performance also receive high marks from community members in the
annual community survey conducted by the Polco (formerly National Research Center).
As the global center of technology and innovation, Palo Alto is the corporate headquarters for many world-class
companies and research facilities. Home to Stanford University and a top-ranked public school system, Palo Alto
also features beautiful and historic residential neighborhoods, vibrant shopping and retail districts. Palo Alto has
a highly educated and culturally sophisticated citizenry that is actively engaged in making a difference both
locally and globally.
For the City’s website, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org
To connect with the City on social media, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/connect
To sign up for the City’s digital newsletter, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/newslettersignup
3.a
Packet Pg. 142
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 7
CITY COUNCIL
The City of Palo Alto operates under a Council-Manager type of government. The City Council consists of seven
members and it is the governing body elected directly by the electorate of Palo Alto. Every year, the City Council
Members vote and select a Mayor. As the legislative branch of our local government, the City Council makes final
decisions on all City matters, sets City-wide priorities and policies, and directs the City Manager to implement
these priorities and policies. The City Council adopts ordinances and resolutions as necessary for efficient
governmental operations, approves the budget, and acts as a board of appeals. It appoints the City Manager,
City Attorney, City Auditor and City Clerk, as well as the members of the City's advisory Boards, Commissions,
and Committees (BCCs).
BCCs are primarily responsible for advising and making recommendations to the City Council on City policies and
programs. The City Council then uses the advice and recommendations offered by BCCs to make decisions. In
addition to making policy recommendations, the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation
Commission, and Historic Resources Board also provide recommendations to the Planning Director or Council on
project applications.
To learn more about the City Council, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/council
For the City Council meeting agendas, go here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/councilagendas
3.a
Packet Pg. 143
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 8
The City of Palo Alto has eight standing Boards, Commissions,
and Committees. The City Council also establishes other Ad
Hoc committees to assist them in their decision-making
process from time to time.
The standing Boards, Commissions and Committees are:
• Architectural Review Board
• Historic Resources Board
• Human Relations Commission
• Parks and Recreation Commission
• Planning and Transportation Commission
• Public Art Commission
• Storm Water Management Oversight Committee
• Utilities Advisory Commission
Other examples of Council appointed groups have included the former Library Advisory Commission, the Citizen
Corps Council, the Youth Commission, the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) on rail crossings, and the
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Working Group.
During recruitment periods for BCCs, applicants are encouraged to visit the City website and apply for openings on
various BCCs. The requirements for each BCC can be found in the Municipal Code or Council action creating the
advisory body and will be reflected in the recruitment material – for example, some have a residency
requirement. A physical address must be included on the application and proof of the address provided must be
issued if requested. Once applications are received, the City Council determines which applicants to interview.
The City Council will then vote to appoint members to serve on a BCC during a public City Council meeting. New
appointments for complete terms are made in the Spring. Any needed replacement appointments for partial
terms are made as necessary.
If you need to leave your seat on a BCC before your term is expired, submit your resignation in writing to your
Staff Liaison, with a copy to the City Clerk. Each letter of resignation must be addressed to the City Council.
Each BCC meets according to its established schedule.
LIMITATION ON TERMS
Any person appointed to a board or commission shall be immediately eligible, upon the expiration of
their term or resignation prior to completion of their term if appointed to a different board or
commission, to serve on a different board or commission. All board and commission members are eligible
to serve two successive terms on the same board or commission. No person who has served
two such successive terms shall be eligible for appointment to that same board or
commission for two years following the expiration of the second full term for which the member was
appointed and served. Serving an unexpired term of up to 2 years in length shall not count toward years served
in terms of eligibility.
II. APPOINTED BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
3.a
Packet Pg. 144
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 9
APPOINTED BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on design and
related issues for certain new construction, and changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multiple-
family projects, as described in the Municipal Code. The Board's goals and purposes are to:
• Promote orderly and harmonious development of the City
• Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City
• Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements
• Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas
• Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same
time, are considerate of each other
• To implement and enforce the city’s ordinances pertaining to architecture and design
The Board is composed of five members, at least three of whom are architects, landscape architects, building
designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years and commence on November 1. See Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.21. Residency is not required.
For the ARB webpage, go to https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/
3.a
Packet Pg. 145
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 10
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
The Historic Resources Board advises the Planning Director and City Council on matters relating to Palo Alto‘s
historic buildings. The responsibilities of the Board include:
• Reviewing and making recommendations to the Architectural Review Board on proposed exterior
changes of commercial and multiple-family buildings on the Historic Building Inventory;
• Reviewing and making recommendations on exterior changes of significant (Categories 1 and 2) single-
family residences on the Historic Building Inventory;
• Researching and making recommendations to the City Council on proposed additions and on
reclassifications of existing buildings on the Inventory; and
• Performing other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the Historic Resources Board by
the City Council.
Terms are for three years and commence on November 1. The Historic Resources Board includes seven
members and the members must have demonstrated interest in and knowledge of history, architecture or
historic preservation. One (1) member is an owner/occupant of a category one or two historic structure, or of a
structure in an historic district; three (3) members are architects, landscape architects, building designers or
other design professionals and at least one (1) member possesses academic education or practical experience in
history or a related field. See PAMC Chapters 2.16, 2.27 and 16.49.
The Historic Resources Board webpage can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/historic/
3.a
Packet Pg. 146
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 11
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
The Human Relations Commission is charged with studying, fostering community awareness and understanding,
encouraging dispute resolution, and recommending legislation regarding persons or groups who do not benefit
fully from public or private opportunities or resources in the community, or are unfairly or differently treated
due to factors of concern to the Commission. The Commission's responsibilities include:
• Public or private opportunities or resources in the community include, but are not limited to, those
associated with ownership and rental of housing, employment, education and governmental services
and benefits;
• Factors of concern to the Commission including but not limited to, socioeconomic class or status,
physical condition or handicap, married or unmarried state, emotional condition, intellectual ability, age,
sex, sexual preference, race, cultural characteristics, ethnic background, ancestry, citizenship, and
religious, conscientious or philosophical belief;
• The Commission will conduct such studies and undertake such responsibilities as the Council may direct;
and
• The Commission recommends allocation of Federal CDBG funds
The Commission is composed of five members who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City,
and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto. Terms are for three years and commence on May 1. See PAMC
Sections 2.16 and 2.22.
The Human Relations Commission webpage can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/hrc
3.a
Packet Pg. 147
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 12
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The Parks and Recreation Commission advises the Community Services Director and City Council on matters
pertaining to the activities of the Open Space, Parks and Golf Division and the Recreation Division of the
Community Services Department. The Commission's responsibilities include:
• Advising on planning and policy matters relating to the goals of and the services provided by the Open
Space, Parks and Golf Division, and the Recreation Division;
• Advising on planning and policy matters relating to the construction and renovation of capital facilities;
• Reviewing state legislative proposals that may affect the operation of the two Divisions;
• Receiving community input concerning parks, open space and recreation activities; and
• Updating and advancing the Parks Master plan and related policies and programs.
The Parks and Recreation Commission is composed of seven members who are not Council Members, officers,
or employees of the City, and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto. Terms of Commissioners will be for
three years. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.25.
The Parks and Recreation Commission webpage can be found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/parks_and_recreation_commission/
3.a
Packet Pg. 148
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
The Planning & Transportation Commission advises the City Council, Planning Director and Transportation
Director on land use and transportation matters, including the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, transportation
programs, and related matters. The Commission's primary responsibilities include:
• Preparing and making recommendations to the City Council on the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding
development, public facilities and transportation in Palo Alto
• Considering and making recommendations to the City Council on zoning map and zoning ordinance
changes
• Reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on subdivisions, on appeals on variances
and use permits
• Considering other policies and programs affecting development and land use in Palo Alto for final City
Council action
• Reviewing and making recommendations on individual projects as described in the Municipal Code, and
Open Space development
• Reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on transportation, parking and other
related mobility issues.
The Commission is composed of seven members who are current residents of the City of Palo Alto and are not
Council Members, officers, or employees of the City. Terms are for four years and commence on November 1.
See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.20 for more information.
The Planning and Transportation Commission webpage can be found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/
3.a
Packet Pg. 149
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 14
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
The Public Art Commission oversees Palo Alto’s temporary and permanent public art programs. The primary
duties of the Commission are:
• To advise the city in matters pertaining to the quality, quantity, scope, and style of art in public places
• To periodically review the capital improvement program with the staff for inclusion of works of art in
various projects
• To devise methods of selecting and commissioning artists with respect to the design, execution, and
placement of art in public places and to advise staff on the selection and commissioning of artists, and
the amounts to be expended on art in public places
• To advise and assist staff in obtaining financial assistance for art in public places from private, corporate,
and governmental sources
• To review plans for the installation of art in public places and review the inventory of art in public paces
• To act as a liaison between local artists and private property owners desiring to install works of art on
their private property in public view
The Commission, a five-member body appointed by the City Council, meets once a month. Terms are for three
years and commence on May 1. See PAMC Sections 2.16, 2.18, and 2.26. Members are not required to be
residents of Palo Alto and should have some demonstrated connection to art.
The Public Art Commission webpage can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/arts/.
3.a
Packet Pg. 150
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 15
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
The purpose of the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee is to review proposed storm water
management capital improvements and operating programs to be funded from the Storm Water Management
Fees and to monitor expenditures of the fund. The Storm Water Management Oversight Committee is charged
with reviewing the annual budget and expenditures of the Storm Water Management Fund in order to ensure
that revenue from the Storm Water Management Fee is being budgeted and spent in accordance with the terms
of the storm water management ballot measure approved by a majority of property owners in 2017. The
Committee is responsible for:
• Performing an annual review of the proposed Storm Water Management Fund budget
• Performing an annual review of actual expenditures from the Storm Water Management Fund
• Adopting findings on an annual basis that the proposed budget and actual expenditures of the Storm
Water Management Fund are consistent with the spending plan outlined in the 2017 storm water
management ballot measure
• Reporting findings on an annual basis to the City Council
The Committee is composed of seven members who are selected and appointed by the City Council for a term of
four years. Each Committee member shall be a resident of Palo Alto, an employee of a business located in Palo
Alto or an owner of real property within the City.
The Storm Water Management Oversight Committee webpage can be found here:
https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/storm_water_management_oversight_committee/
3.a
Packet Pg. 151
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 16
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) is charged with advising the City Council on: long-range planning and
policy and major program and project matters relating to the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater
collection utility, fiber optics utility and recycled water matters; acquisition and development of electric, gas and
water resources; joint action projects with other public or private entities which involve electric, gas or water
resources; and environmental implications of electric, gas or water utility projects, and conservation and
demand management. Specifically, the Utilities Advisory Commission advises the Council on:
• Development of the City utilities and the recycled water resources
• Joint action projects with other public or private entities
• The consistency with adopted and approved plans, policies, and programs of any major utility
• Legislative proposals regarding City utilities and the recycled water resources, to which the city is a
party, in which the city has an interest, or by which the city may be affected
• Utility capital improvement programs, operating budgets and related reserves, and rates, and the
recycled water program, budget, and rate
• Environmental aspects and attributes of City utilities and recycled water resources
• Water and energy conservation, energy efficiency, and demand side management
The Utilities Advisory Commission is composed of seven members who shall be appointed by and serve at the
pleasure of the City Council. The term of office of each member shall be three years or until his or her successor
is appointed. Six members of the Commission shall at all times be residents of the City. See Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.23 for more information on the Utilities Advisory Commission.
The Utilities Advisory Commission webpage can be found here: https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/
3.a
Packet Pg. 152
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 17
ROLE OF ALL MEMBERS
All Board and commission members are responsible for certain duties
and commitments to the City, City Council, and the BCC on which they
serve. Each member must know, understand, accept, and accomplish his
or her delegated responsibilities in order to be effective. General
expectations include:
• Come prepared
• Work collaboratively
• Respect one another, City staff and the public
• Serve the public
• Avoid conflict of interest issues
• Disagree through respectful dialogue
Getting Started
• Take the Oath of Office.
• Complete and sign a Form 700 and turn it in to the City Clerk’s Office.
• Understand the role and responsibilities of the appointed BCC.
• Be informed of its functions and relationship with other BCCs.
• Timely complete Ethics training (AB 1234).
• Attend the orientation scheduled by your Staff Liaison and/or the City Clerk.
• Become familiar with the BCC’s governing rules and regulations.
• Decide with your Staff Liaison on how and when you will receive agenda packets.
• Attend all regular and special meetings. In the event that you cannot attend a meeting, provide timely
notification to the Chair and the Staff Liaison.
During Meetings
• Arrive at meetings on time.
• Be prepared for meetings.
• Review all staff reports, maps, studies, proposals, correspondence, minutes, etc. prior to the meeting.
• Have all reference materials on hand for the meeting.
• Familiarize yourself with conflict of interest regulations and discuss potential conflicts of interest with
the City Attorney’s office prior to the meeting where any matter of potential conflict will arise. Recuse
yourself from any participation in a matter where you have a conflict.
• Consult the City Attorney if you have any questions of a legal nature related to your service as a BCC
member.
• Avoid leaving before the meeting adjourns without prior notice.
• Establish a good working relationship with fellow members, City Council, and staff liaison. Exhibit mutual
respect to fellow members to ensure a positive working environment.
• Become familiar with parliamentary procedures to ensure that meetings proceed in a timely fashion.
• Consider the overall public good when making a decision.
• Talk to the Chair and Staff Liaison about placing items on future agendas.
• If you receive correspondence addressed to the BCC, including email, forward the correspondence to
the Staff Liaison so copies can be distributed to all members and the correspondence can become an
official City record.
IV. YOUR ROLE AS A BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE MEMBER
3.a
Packet Pg. 153
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 18
• Discourage visible and audible signs of agreement or disagreement from the audience such as applause
or statements from the floor. Such demonstrations can intimidate those with an opposing view and
unintentionally discourage open public discussion of all the issues and points of view.
• Limit your own comments to the issues before the BCC. Avoid the appearance of straying from the
subject or "grandstanding."
• Individual commissioners should avoid giving Staff Liaisons direction or making specific requests outside
of the public meetings.
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHAIR
At the beginning of the year, each BCC will select a member to
serve as Chair. The Chair exists to structure productive meetings,
encourage the input of ideas, promote inclusiveness, and
facilitate the overall decision-making process. They do not have
greater power than any other member. The following is a list of
duties and responsibilities of the Chair:
• Ensure that the BCC completes the annual work plan and
reports the results annually to the City Council. The work
plan shall include metrics of community involvement and
participation in meetings and activities.
• Set a positive tone and manage public input to promote civility and decorum.
• Preside at all meetings, submit all motions to vote and in general, do all things ordinarily required of a
Chair such as call or cancel a meeting, coordinate the setting of the agenda with the Staff Liaison,
receive public testimony, ensure compliance with the Brown Act, etc. Move forward committee
priorities and refrain from promoting or setting a personal agenda. Ensures that items not listed on the
agenda are prohibited from being discussed or acted upon pursuant to the Brown Act, unless specific
circumstances apply.
• Act as the spokesperson for the BCC, including as the media’s point of contact for information regarding
BCC activities. Seek advice and involvement of the City’s Public Communications Manager as needed,
through the Staff Liaison.
• Ensure that all members are heard in a fair and safe manner. The Chair is responsible for ensuring the
effectiveness of the group process. Identifies points of agreement among the BCC members in order to
build a consensus.
• Ensures that consideration of items on the agenda moves along without delay and makes sure that
public testimony is received, but not allowed to disrupt the meeting. This includes setting an acceptable
time limit; if necessary.
• Clarifies all ideas as they are discussed, and repeats motions made in a way so all members understand
the motion they will be asked to vote on and ensures that actions are properly moved, seconded, and
voted upon. Always indicate clearly how the vote is taken such as call for the negative vote, saying,
“Those opposed, say No.”
In the absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall act as presiding officer and shall have the same
responsibilities.
3.a
Packet Pg. 154
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 19
REQUIRED TRAINING
Mandatory training shall be provided to all board, commission and committee members by the City through a
collaboration between the Offices of the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager, and will include an
orientation session for new members. Training shall be delivered as deemed necessary by the Council and/or
the City Attorney, City Clerk and City Manager and may include topics germane to a specific board or
commission and/or training generic to all boards and commissions (e.g. ethics training or “how to run a
meeting” for board and commission chairs).
ROLE OF THE STAFF LIAISON(S)
The staff liaison serves as the link between City staff, City Council, and BCC members. The City Manager assigns a
staff liaison to each BCC to provide support, coordination, and guidance. The Staff Liaison makes sure that
required BCC meetings occur and, in conjunction with the Chair, prepares the monthly meeting agendas. The
staff liaison is also responsible for the coordination, distribution, and posting of all committee agendas pursuant
to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Committee members should feel free to contact the staff liaison with questions or
requests for support such as sharing City policy or program information and providing historical context to issue
under review by the BCC. Staff liaisons will provide direction, guidance, and clerical, organizational, and
administrative support to commissions on an as needed basis. The staff liaison also facilitates the transmission
of BCC interests, concerns, and recommendations to the City Manager and City Council.
The staff liaison must be aware and advise the Commission of any potential Brown Act violations; the liaison must
be present and attentive for the duration of the meeting. At the request of the Chair, and with the support of a
majority of the BCC members, the Staff Liaison researches and investigates issues, prepares alternatives and
recommendations for BCC and City Council review, and implements City Council policy decisions.
Other duties include facilitating the transmission of BCC interests, concerns, and recommendations to the City
Manager and/or City Council; maintaining communication with the Chair regarding City Manager and/or City
Council direction or requests; coordinating the annual selection of a Chair and Vice Chair in accordance with the
City Council adopted policies and procedures, supporting annual workplan development, and keeping the City
Clerk apprised of any resignations or other issues affecting the BCC.
During the BCC meeting Staff Liaisons will ensure there is a quorum prior to the Chair calling a Commission
meeting to order and adjourn a Commission meeting in the event there is lack of a quorum 15 minutes after the
start time of a meeting. In addition, the Staff Liaison will not allow the public to address the Commission during
the 15 minutes while waiting for additional members to arrive to form a quorum. Staff may make
announcements during this time; no agenda items shall be discussed among the members present. The Staff
Liaison will advise the Commission to recess or adjourn the meeting if a quorum is not present at any point
during the meeting.
ROLE OF COUNCIL LIAISONS
The City Council relies upon the expertise and recommendations of the BCCs in advising the Council as it sets
City policy. The Council liaison function serves to facilitate and enhance this work. Their principal function is to
provide a wide range of information to the advisory body, such as information about Council discussions,
policies and actions. This helps provide an historical perspective and thereby place the BCC work in
context. However, the BCCs should act independently in formulating recommendations for the City Council to
consider. Therefore, it is inconsistent for liaisons to direct, guide or unduly influence the policy making work of
the City's advisory bodies. Council liaisons have flexibility in discharging their duties. They may serve with or
without attending the meetings of their advisory bodies. Historically, Boards and Commission members have
valued consistent participation by Council liaisons. However, at minimum, they should be available for contacts
with members of advisory bodies, and particularly with the chairs.
3.a
Packet Pg. 155
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 20
USE OF SUBCOMMITTEES AND AD HOC COMMITTEES
BCCs may consider dividing into subcommittees and/or use ad hoc committees to address certain issues when
appropriate. The City Council prefers the use of Ad Hoc committees which are short term and established for the
BCC to discuss a specific topic or priority. Sub-committees should be used judiciously as it is the wish of the
Council that the entire BCC participate in most agenda topics. Sub-committees work independently and bring a
report and recommendations back to the BCC. The subcommittee and/or the ad hoc committee would be
composed of less than a quorum of the body and set their own schedule. Subcommittee meetings must be
noticed under the Brown Act. Ad hoc committees convene for a single topic and disband when the work on a
single item is finished. Ad hoc committee meetings need not be noticed or open to the public. The Chair usually
makes assignments to subcommittees and ad hoc committees and directs the workflow. BCCs may have both
standing subcommittees and ad hoc committees, though it is recommended that BCCs focus their work through
Ad Hoc committees.
Ad hoc or "temporary" committees are treated differently under the Brown Act. Ad hoc committees are not
subject to the notice and posting requirements of the Brown Act so long as the committee:
• Consists of less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum;
• Has a defined purpose and a time frame to accomplish that purpose; and
• Is advisory such as the committee has not been delegated any decision-making power and will be
returning to the full board on its recommendation.
Establishing Ad Hoc Committees
Members of ad hoc committees designed to be advisory to the board/commission may be appointed by the
chair, on behalf of the entire board, commission, or committee or by an action of the entire BCC, depending
upon the procedures and practices of the BCC. Although, as noted, the ad hoc committee itself is not subject to
the Brown Act if the BCC desires to create an ad hoc committee, the action to create the ad hoc committee
should be done at a publicly noticed meeting under the Brown Act and the item should be placed on an agenda
for that purpose.
ANNUAL WORKPLAN AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Each BCC should prepare an annual work plan for proposal to the Council by second quarter of the calendar
year. The Council will review
the work plans and provide feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting. The annual report should
include the results of the prior year’s plan. When applicable, the City Council would like to see metrics of
community involvement and participation in meetings and activities included in the work plan.
Council expects BCCs to work on items in the approved workplan. In addition, Council may refer additional items
to the BCC in response to new developments. BCCs should refrain from expending their time and that of the
staff liaison on items that have not been approved by the City Council. If the BCC would like to add an issue for
review after an annual workplan has been approved the City Council, a prompt request by the BCC
Chair to the City Council is required and the item will then be addressed by the City Council as a whole.
A workplan template can be found later in the handbook, see Exhibit A.
GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT OF BCC MEETINGS
The Chair should recognize other BCC members in the order in which they raise their hands to speak. The Chair
should provide an opportunity for each member to speak on an item. BCC members should speak when
recognized by the Chair.
3.a
Packet Pg. 156
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 21
When a member of the public desires to address the BCC, they should fill out a speaker’s card, proceed to the
podium when called, and wait to be recognized before speaking. The Chair should let the public know how long
they are allocated to speak. Speakers should limit their remarks to the issue under discussion. Remarks should
be addressed to the BCC as a body, and not to any individual BCC member, staff member, or other person.
AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS
The agenda should contain a brief general description of each item
to be considered. Except where provided by law, no discussion or
action will be taken on an item not appearing on the
agenda. The sequence of items in an agenda is generally as
follows:
• Call to Order
• Roll Call
• Approval of Minutes
• Public Comment on items not on the agenda
• Action Items
• Reports of BCC Members, Sub-Committees, and Ad Hoc
Committees
• Brief announcements or Matters of BCC Interest
• Adjournment
All agendas should include language stating that agenda materials may be provided in alternate formats
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
Parliamentary procedures establish a framework for
orderly meetings. They encourage participation,
structure discussion and facilitate decision making.
They permit expression of minority views while
ultimately allowing a majority to fashion an outcome.
The following principles are the foundation of effective parliamentary procedures:
• Fairness, respect and courtesy should be afforded to everyone.
• Do only one thing at a time: one subject at a time and one speaker at a time.
• Business must be conducted. The BCC exists to facilitate action, not obstruct it.
• All BCC members are equal and have equal voting rights.
• The majority decides, but the rights and interest of a minority must be protected.
• Silence gives consent, so if you oppose please speak up.
• Once settled, a question generally may not be reintroduced.
The City Council does not use Robert’s Rules of Parliamentary Procedure, which were created to structure the
meetings of very large formal legislative bodies. The Council has adopted a more streamlined set of procedural
requirements here starting on page 27. BCC members may also find it helpful to review Rosenberg’s Rules of
Order, a simplified set of procedural rules designed for use at the local government level. A tenet of
parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion, debate, and a vote, there must
be some closure to the issue. And so, after a vote is taken, the matter generally is deemed resolved. Exceptions
to this general rule include when a proper motion to reconsider is made, or where new developments occur that
warrant further work on an issue.
3.a
Packet Pg. 157
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 22
CODE OF CONDUCT
This section is intended to describe a code of conduct for Boards, Commission and Committee members and
designed to define the manner in which Council Members and BCC members should treat one another, City
staff, constituents, and others they come into contact with in representing the City of Palo Alto. The City Council
encourages positive and respectful dialogue. Therefore, members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal
charges, hostile body language, disrespectful language or verbal attacks upon the character of others. It is both
encouraged and expected that the chair of each BCC intercedes when the conduct of another member is rude or
violates code of conduct.
BCC members are important to the City’s decision-making process, act on behalf of the City Council in their
volunteer roles and help shape and further community discussions on complex issues and topics. As such,
disagreement may arise during public meetings as different perspectives are shared and providing different
perspectives to Council is encouraged. A high level of professionalism and civility is expected of all BCC members
throughout their tenure. Disagreement and criticism of policy is fine but personal attacks must be avoided.
It is important that BCC members treat each other and the public with respect, even through disagreement.
Elected and appointed officials are composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds, personalities,
values, opinions, and goals. Despite this diversity, all have chosen to serve in public office in order to preserve
and protect the present and the future of the community. In all cases, this common goal should be
acknowledged even though individuals may "agree to disagree" on contentious issues.
Residents, property owners and businesses of City of Palo Alto are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable
local government. Such a government requires that public officials: be independent, impartial and fair in their
judgment and actions; use their public office for the public good, not for personal gain, and conduct public
deliberations and processes openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.
Elected and Appointed officials shall honor this personal code of conduct from the time of their election or
appointment to office.
Act in the Public Interest: Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their principal concern,
everyone shall work for the common good of the City of Palo Alto and not for any private or personal interest,
and they will endeavor to treat all persons, claims and transactions in fair and equitable manner.
Comply with the Law: Everyone shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California and the City in
the performance of their public duties. These laws include but are not limited to: the United States and
California constitutions; the City of Palo Alto Charter, Municipal Code, City policies and other governing
documents related to conflict of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, and employer responsibilities
and open processes of government.
Conduct of Members: Everyone shall refrain from abusive conduct and verbal attacks upon the character or
motives of other members of the City Council, boards, commissions, committees, staff or the public.
3.a
Packet Pg. 158
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 23
No Tolerance for harassment or Microaggressions: The City of Palo Alto is committed to providing an
environment for employees, elected or appointed officials, members of the public, and contractors that
promotes dignity and respect and is free from discrimination and harassment. The City prohibits all forms of
harassment and discrimination based upon protected classifications as defined below. “Protected Classification”
includes race, religion (including religious dress or grooming practice), religious creed, color, sex (includes
gender, gender identity, gender expression, transgender, pregnancy, childbirth, medical conditions related to
pregnancy or childbirth, breastfeeding or medical conditions related to breastfeeding), sexual orientation
(including heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality), ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status,
military and veteran status, marital status, family relationship, age, medical condition, genetic characteristics
and/or genetic information, and physical or mental disability.
In addition to prohibiting explicit harassment, the City of Palo Alto strives to provide an inclusive environment.
One method to create an inclusive public space is to help people develop awareness of microaggressions and
remove them from conversation. Microaggressions are comments or actions that subtly and often unconsciously
or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial
minority). The City will provide training to help members develop awareness of and then eliminate
microaggressions.
Any employee, applicant, elected/appointed official, contract worker, intern or volunteer, who believes
he or she has been harassed or retaliated against are encouraged to promptly report the incident and the
individuals involved. BCC members may consult with the Chair, Vice-Chair or staff liaison regarding making a
report.
Respect for Process: Duties shall be performed in accordance with the processes and rules of order established
by the City Council.
Conduct of Public Meetings: BCC members shall inform themselves of public issues, listen attentively to public
discussions before the body, and focus on the business at hand.
Communication: It is the responsibility of BCC members to publicly share substantive information that is relevant
to a matter under consideration that they received from sources outside of the public decision-making
processes.
Disclosure of Corruption: BCC members shall take an oath upon assuming office, pledging to uphold the
constitution and laws of the City, the State and the Federal government. As part of this oath, officials commit to
disclosing to the appropriate authorities and/or to the City Council any behavior or action that may qualify as
corruption, abuse, fraud, bribery or other violations of the law.
Conflict of Interest: To ensure public confidence in City decision making, BCC members shall familiarize
themselves with and comply with state conflict of interest laws.
Gifts and Favors: BCC members shall not take advantage of services or opportunities offered due to their public
office and that are not available to the public in general. They shall refrain from accepting gifts, favors or
promises of future benefits that might compromise their independence, judgment, or action or give the
appearance of being compromised.
Confidential Information: BCC members shall respect and preserve the confidentiality of information provided to
them concerning the confidential matters of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential information
without proper legal authorization nor use such information to advance their financial or private interests.
3.a
Packet Pg. 159
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 24
Representation of Private Interests: In keeping with their role as stewards of the public trust, BCC members shall
not appear on behalf of the private interests of a third-party before the City Council or any board, commission or
committee or proceeding the City.
Advocacy: It is the role of Commissioners to advise the Council on policies and positions within the domain of
their Commission. To the best of their ability, within the domain of their Commission, BCC members shall
represent the official policies and positions of the City Council. When presenting their personal opinions or
positions, members shall explicitly state that they do not represent the Council or the City.
Improper Influence: BCC members shall refrain from using their position to improperly influence the
deliberations or decisions of City staff, boards, commission or committees.
Policy Role of Members: BCC members shall respect and support the Council-Manager structure of the City of
Palo Alto as provided in the City Charter.
Positive Work Environment: BCC members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive
environment for residents, businesses, and City employees.
Compliance and Enforcement: BCC members have the primary responsibility to ensure that ethical standards are
understood and met and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of City government.
This personal code of conduct shall be considered to be a summary of ethical conduct by Palo Alto Boards,
Commissions and Committees. A member can be removed from their BCC position by the City Council if their
conduct fails to meet any of these ethical standards.
For Quasi-Judicial Hearings: Communications with an applicant or any member of the public is strongly
discouraged beginning from the time an application has been submitted and until final decision is reached. If any
communication does occur, it must be fully disclosed.
Conduct in Public Meetings
The following guidelines provide specific examples of conduct that reinforce the principles identified above:
• Use formal titles: Elected and appointed officials should refer to one another formally during public
meetings, such as Mayor, Vice Mayor, Chair, Commissioner, Board member or Councilmember followed
by the individual’s last name.
• Practice civility and decorum in discussions and debate: Difficult questions, tough challenges to a
particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of a free
democracy in action. This does not allow, however, public officials to make belligerent, personal,
impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments. This includes non-verbal
communications including body language or eye rolling. No shouting or physical actions that could be
construed as threatening will be tolerated. Lack of civility is grounds for dismissal.
• Honor the role of the chair in maintaining order, while respecting each member’s prerogative to
intercede on inappropriate conduct: It is the responsibility of the chair to keep the comments of
members on track during public meetings. Members should honor efforts by the chair to focus
discussion on current agenda items. If there is disagreement about the agenda or the chair’s actions,
those objections should be voiced respectfully and with reason, following procedures outlined in
parliamentary procedure and the suggestion below.
• Avoid personal comments that could offend other members: If a member is personally offended by the
remarks of another member, or feels the remarks may be offensive to others, the offended member
3.a
Packet Pg. 160
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 25
should communicate their position and seek resolution to the situation raised. The chair will maintain
control of this discussion.
• Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches: Members have a public stage to show how
individuals with disparate points of view can find common ground and seek a compromise that benefits
the community as a whole.
Outside of official board or commission meetings, individual board and commission members are not
authorized to represent the City or their board or commission unless specifically designated by the Council or
the board or commission to do so for a particular purpose.
Although a board or commission may disagree with the final decision the Council makes, the board or
commission shall not act in any manner contrary to the established policy adopted by the Council.
The Institute for Local Government offers tools and publications to help further a consistent code
of conduct for all Boards, Commissions and Committees. This publication offers tips for civility during public
meetings. Some key recommendations include:
• Ensure everyone gets a chance to share their viewpoint
• Embrace different perspectives
• Avoid debates and interruptions
• Listen
• Be compassionate
Conduct with City Staff
Governance of a city relies on the cooperative efforts of elected officials who set policy, appointed officials who
advise the elected, and City staff who advise, implement and administer the Council’s policies. Therefore, every
effort should be made to be cooperative and show mutual respect for the contributions made by each individual
for the good of the community.
Treat all staff as professionals: Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity
of each individual is expected. Unprofessional and/or antagonistic behavior towards staff is not acceptable.
MEETING MANAGEMENT
The City of Palo Alto is committed to conducting efficient, effective, and accessible government operations. The
following material outlines techniques that can be used to ensure that BCC meetings are efficiently run and give
all residents an equal opportunity to address the issues.
3.a
Packet Pg. 161
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 26
PROCEEDINGS
• It is generally a good idea to turn off cell phones, PDAs or iPads and refrain from texting during meetings
unless there is an emergency.
• Please be aware that any messages sent or received relating to City business, including those posted on
social media, may become a public record and releasable if requested.
• Documents used or shared at Board, Commission and Committee meetings are subject to the Public
Records Act.
• Start the meetings on time. Keep the agenda in mind in order to give each item the appropriate time.
• Announce at the start of a meeting if the order of agenda items is to be rearranged for convenience, for
response to those attending for only certain items, or for better pacing of the agenda.
• Let the Chair run the meeting.
• Be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, staff, and each other.
• Give your full attention when others speak.
• Encourage public participation in the meeting process.
• Come to each meeting with an open mind.
• Base decisions on public engagement, committee discussion, and meeting dialogue.
• Abstain if you have a conflict of interest or if you believe you may have one and have not yet conferred
with the City Attorney. You may also abstain if you feel you cannot be fair or cannot consider the item
with the public’s interest foremost in mind.
• Value and respect the professional expertise of staff and consultants, while providing independent
critical thinking, expertise, and input. Remember that people may be attending a meeting for the first
time and may be unfamiliar with your procedures. In your discussion, either avoid or explain technical
terms or verbal shorthand.
• Listen to the public’s concerns. Do not engage inside conversations or otherwise be distracted during
public testimony. The opportunity for public testimony is central to the strength of democracy and is
therefore encouraged. Active listening, however, does not mean engaging the public in debate. Your
response is appropriately saved for after the public testimony is closed.
• Sometimes questions can most effectively focus discussion and direct decision-making. For Example:
What is the history behind this item? What are the benefits and drawbacks? What other alternatives
should we consider?
ATTENDANCE
• The City Council expects that members of BCCs will make every effort to attend all scheduled meetings.
• A compilation of attendance will be submitted to the City Council at least annually listing absences for all
commissions/committee members.
• If you miss more than one-third of the BCC meetings during the calendar year, this will be reported to
Council and may result in your removal from the BCC.
• Any member who feels that unique circumstances have led to numerous absences can appeal directly to
the City Council for a waiver of this policy or to obtain a leave of absence.
• While it is expected that members be present at all meetings, the chair and staff liaison should be
notified if a member knows in advance that he/she will be absent.
• When reviewing commissioners for reappointment, attendance at commission meetings will be given
significant consideration.
3.a
Packet Pg. 162
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 27
LATE ARRIVAL TO MEETINGS
If a member anticipates being late to a meeting, please notify the staff liaison regarding the approximate time of
arrival. Staff will alert the Chair.
ABSENCES
Please refer to the BBC attendance requirements in the section above. It is an expectation as part of your BCC
service to attend all meetings. If you plan to be absent from a meeting, inform your staff liaison prior to the
posting of your committee’s agenda.
MINUTES
The staff liaison will prepare action minutes (except for the Historic Resources Committee, where the secretary
shall do so). Action minutes or summary (sense) minutes are preferred. Verbatim minutes are discouraged. The
minutes serve as the permanent official record of the advisory body. The minutes should reflect the members in
attendance, members who were absent, a description of each agenda item and the action taken by the advisory
body. Titles of motions and resolutions are recorded verbatim. In order to become an official record of activities,
minutes must be approved by the BCC. Minutes are normally approved as soon as reasonably possible.
Amendments or corrections may be made to the minutes in public meetings, with the approval of the BCC.
INTERACTING WITH THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC
It is important to recognize that as a BCC member your actions and comments are often interpreted to be that of
the entire BCC, the staff, or the City.. The Communications Office is available to assist BCC members in
interactions with the media.
When speaking with the media, observe the following guidelines:
• You must clarify who you represent as the speaker. Are you speaking in your capacity as a BCC Chair or
as a private resident? Keep in mind that a member’s comments to the press or other public comments
are sometimes misinterpreted even though the BCC Chair states that they are speaking for themselves.
• Do not make promises to the public that are binding on the BCC, staff, or the City Council.
• Comments to the media or the public should be factual and accurate. Avoid speculation.
3.a
Packet Pg. 163
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 28
SWEARING IN AND OATH OF OFFICE
Before taking office, each BCC member must be sworn in by the City Clerk,
by taking the Oath of Office to swear, or affirm, that he or she will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of
the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that he or
she will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of California; that he or she takes
this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that he or she will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which
he or she is about to enter.
FORM 700 OBLIGATION AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 87103 FINANCIAL INTEREST)
BCC members must file an annual Form 700 by April 1 of each year. In addition, most filers also must file within 30
days of assuming and leaving office. If you have any questions about your Form 700 duty to file, please contact
the City Clerk. Failure to timely file a Form 700 is grounds for dismissal.
ETHICS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, TRAINING
State and local laws have been adopted to ensure that local decision making is free from certain conflicts of
interest or the possibility of conflicts of interest. The Council has determined that appointed BCC members
should comply with these rules. Beyond the rules, BCC members should conduct themselves to a high ethical
standard, ensuring that all their duties are performed in the public interest.
BCC members must complete two hours of approved ethics training within one year of appointment, and every
two years thereafter. BCC members are responsible for compliance and submitting their certificates of
completion to the City Clerk. The training covers both conflicts of interest law and ethics principles.
There are a number of options for complying with the training requirement:
Self-study materials are available at http://www.ca-ilg.org/ab1234compliance. The materials require that you
read two articles on public service ethics laws and principles, take a self-assessment test, and then submit it to
the Institute for Local Government with a processing fee for each test. The Institute will review your test(s),
provide you the correct answers to the questions and a proof of participation certificate.
The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) offers free online training at
http://localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx. This option requires you to log onto the FPPC’s website, review various
screens of materials, take periodic tests to assure retention of the information and then print out a certificate.
Failure to recuse can be grounds for dismissal.
V. CITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
3.a
Packet Pg. 164
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 29
REMOVAL
BCC members serve at the pleasure of the Council. Council reserves the right to remove one or more members
of a BCC at any time, for any reason. BCC members understand that they are not entitled to any process in the
event Council removes them from service. Incumbents seeking a reappointment are required to complete and
file an application with the City Clerk by the application deadline.
Board and commission members provide domain knowledge and reflect a diverse range of perspectives in the
community. Removal of appointees shall not be on the basis of political perspectives of the Council or
commissioner. Removal should be based on performance related concerns such as legal or ethical violations, a
pattern of absences, misconduct toward staff, colleagues, or the public, or actions that undermine the public
trust in the commission or the Council.
The City Council may remove a member by a majority vote of the City Council. Three council members can
agendize a removal action item. The removal vote will occur in an open Council session where any member of
the public can speak.
3.a
Packet Pg. 165
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 30
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950 et seq., sets
forth certain legal requirements regarding BCCs based on the public’s
right to know how decisions are made. Public agencies, boards,
commissions, and committees exist to aid in the conduct of the
people’s business. With the exception of ad hoc subcommittees, all
City BCC meetings shall be publicly noticed and agendized as required
by the Brown Act. The public shall be permitted to attend and
participate, according to the rules. These transparency procedures
improve promote trust in the public body and foster mutual respect by
serving the public’s right to be heard and considered in the decision-
making process.
The League of California Cities prepared a publication titled Open & Public V: A Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act
which is an informative guide to the Brown Act, including tips, examples and illustrations. View it for free at:
http://www.cacities.org/openandpublic.
For additional information or to answer questions, BCC members should consult with their staff liaison, and
through the staff liaison the City Attorney, as necessary.
MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
A "meeting" takes place whenever a quorum is present and official business is considered. An agenda for each
regularly scheduled meeting must be posted at least 72-hours in advance. Agendas for special meetings require
24 hours’ notice. The agenda should include a brief description of every item to be considered. Except for very
brief announcements, if an item is not on the agenda, discussion should be deferred to a future meeting when it
can be properly agendized.
AVOIDING UNLAWFUL MEETINGS AND “SERIAL” MEETINGS
BCC members are permitted to socialize in a non-meeting setting but must refrain from discussing any BCC
business. Care should be taken to make sure that if a quorum of a BCC is gathered at a public or private meeting
place, no public business is discussed and that the gathering will not be interpreted as a meeting. Any
conversation that occurs among a majority of the members of a BCC on business that will come before it or is
likely to come before it is improper under the Brown Act no matter the means by which the conversation takes
place - in person communications, phone calls, writings, and electronic correspondence. When using email, be
cognizant that the Brown Act may be violated if a majority of a BCC engages in communication about City
business that is or is likely to come before that BCC. Email correspondence is covered by the Brown Act and BCC
members should be careful not to “reply all” to a communication directed to a BCC. In addition, emails and
phone call records relating to City business may be searchable and releasable pursuant to Public Records Act
requests.
VI RALPH M. BROWN ACT
3.a
Packet Pg. 166
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 31
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public has the right to be notified of items on the agenda, to attend meetings of a legislative body, to record
the meeting, to speak before or during consideration of an agenda item, and to see the materials of the
legislative body.
Every agenda must include time for public comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the BCC and not on the
agenda. BCC members generally should not engage in discussion of items raised by the public that are not on
the agenda.
If a Board or Commission member receives materials or information directly from an applicant, he or she shall
notify the Staff Liaison immediately.
Agenda materials released less than 72 hours prior to the meeting must be made available to the public at a
specified location as well as at the BCC meeting. The public must be allowed to speak on every agendized item,
before an action or vote is taken by the BCC.
Accommodations are available so that persons with disabilities can participate in all aspects of a BCC meeting.
Members of the public may make a written request to the staff liaison, including the requestor's name, address,
phone number and brief description of the requested materials, preferred alternative format, auxiliary aid or
service, or other needed accommodation. Advance notice is kindly requested so that arrangements can be
made.
3.a
Packet Pg. 167
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 32
The City Council thanks you for applying for and accepting a position on one
of the City’s Boards, Commissions, or Committees, and for devoting your
time to help build a great community in Palo Alto through your civic
involvement. Please use this Handbook as a guide as you carry out your
duties as a member of a BCC, and please contact the City Clerk or your staff
liaison if you need any further information, advice, or assistance.
NCLCONCLUSI
VI. CONCLUSION
3.a
Packet Pg. 168
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook| City of Palo Alto 33
BCC WORK PLAN GUIDELINES AND PROCESS
The City Council will vote on BCC work plans annually. Workplans are due in June and should consist of up to
three priorities. The City Council will ask the BCC Chair to present the workplan to the City Council. Workplans
should include if there is an intent to use Ad Hoc committees to assist in the BCC work for the year ahead. After
the workplan is approved, if there is an additional priority the BCC would like added, the BCC chair would make a
prompt request to the Council.
To guide the work of developing the BCC annual workplans, a short checklist is provided below:
• Review purpose of the BCC
• Discuss any City Council priorities for the BCC
• Discuss existing and possible projects, priorities and goals
• Order from high priority to low priority
• Finalize draft work plan for City Council review
• Use approved workplan as a guide to focus BCC work throughout the term of the workplan (one or two
years)
• Present report to the City Council annually and include:
• List of priorities, projects and goals
• Status updates
• If items are not complete, include why and any other additional details to share with the Council
EXHIBIT A
3.a
Packet Pg. 169
BCC WORKPLAN TEMPLATE
BCC NAME
BCC Purpose:
Approved
Projects,
Priorities, and
Goals
Name of
Project, Priority
or Goal
Benefit, if
Completed
Mandate by
State or Local
law and
approved by
City Council?
Y/N
Policy Update
as Directed by
the City
Council
Y/N
Timeline for
Completion
Resources
needed, i.e.
staff support,
sub committee
established,
etc.
Measure of
Success
Prioritize
projects,
priorities and
goals
Name of
Project, Priority
or Goal
Priority 1:
Urgent
(within six
months)
Priority 2: High
(within the
year)
Priority 3:
Medium
(within 2
years)
Priority 4: Low
(beyond 2
years)
3.a
Packet Pg. 170
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 12238)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 5/6/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Minutes of April 1, 2021
Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 1,
2021
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Draft minutes from the April 1, 2021 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in
Attachment A.
Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB
Attachments:
Attachment A: April 1, 2021 Draft Minutes (DOCX)
4
Packet Pg. 171
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Osma Thompson, Vice Chair Grace Lee, Board Members, Peter Baltay, David
Hirsch, and Alexander Lew.
Absent: None.
[Roll Call]
Chair Thompson: Welcome everyone to the April 1st meeting. Maybe we have been doing this for a
year. I don’t know. It all seems to fly by. Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive
Order N-29-20, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. Spoken
comments via a computer will be accepted via through the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address
the Board, go to ZOOM.us./join. Meeting ID is 99638692965. When you wish to speak on an agenda
item click on raised hands. When called please limit your remarks to the time allotted. Spoken public
comments using a smartphone will also be accepted through the Zoom mobile application. To offer
comments using a regular phone, call 1-669-900-6833 and enter meeting ID 99638692965. When you
wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. It’s getting
more musical every time. I’m working on that so you guys know.
Oral Communications
Chair Thompson: Our next item is Oral communications. The public may speak on an item not on the
agenda. Vinh, do we have any members of the public that would like to speak?
Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate: We currently do not have any raised hands for oral
communications.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Next item is agenda changes, additions and deletions.
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No changes at this time.
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 Thompson: Thanks. City Official Reports.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: April 1, 2021
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
Virtual Meeting
8:30 AM
4.a
Packet Pg. 172
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you very much. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning. You‘ll see we
have the schedule up on the screen. We are going to remain virtual for at least the foreseeable future.
We will let you know if that changes. At least we are moving to orange and hopefully moving to yellow
tier fairly soon. In the yellow tier, we will not be coming back for Board meetings; it won’t be until green
for sure. The next page we have the items for the future. April 14th we have the 4256 El Camino, which
is some parking changes to a recently approved hotel. We have 300 Pasteur, which is a preliminary for
the hospital, and then we also have a subcommittee for 180 El Camino Real and that is for the movement
of the signs. That would be our hearing for next time. Also, the review of the commission handbook.
This is a handbook that Council put out somewhat recently and we do want to have more informational
but somewhat of a discussion with the ARB.
Study Session/Preliminary Review
2. 2850 W Bayshore [21PLN-00041]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a
Proposed 48-Unit Residential Townhome Development. Environmental Assessment:
Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: ROLM (Research Office and Limited
Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at
Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. I think we will move on to our next item which is the study session and
preliminary review. This is for 2850 West Bayshore, request for preliminary architectural review of a
proposed 48-unit residential townhome development. Do we have any disclosures?
Vice Chair Lee: I’ll simply disclosure that I visited the site.
Chair Thompson: Thank you.
Board Member Baltay: Osma, I visited the site but you don’t need disclosures I don’t think for a
preliminary review.
Chair Thompson: That’s true.
Board Member Baltay: But it doesn’t matter.
Chair Thompson: If anyone else still wants to disclose anything feel free. I also visited the site. I’ll let
staff go ahead.
Claire Raybould, Senior Planner: Thank you, Chair Thompson and Board Members. Claire Raybould,
Senior Planner. The project before you today is 2850 West Bayshore, new multi-family residential
development. This is located just off Bayshore Road near Greer Park. Just a brief overview of the
project, this is just a preliminary review of the project. They will be coming back to the Architectural
Review Board if a formal application is filed. This is a preliminary review of a proposal to demolish an
existing approximately 32,500 square foot office building and redevelop the site with 48 for-sale
residential townhomes. I wanted to note that the applicant has applied for a preliminary application for
Senate Bill 330 project, which they are eligible for as a two-thirds housing development. The city is
reviewing that preliminary application right now. Once that is deemed complete, that locks in their
development standards so they can choose whether to use the development standards that are
applicable at the time that that application is deemed complete, or they can choose to use the current
development standards. I wanted to note that because we are going through the process of these
objective standards and if that application is deemed complete before the objective standards get
approved by Council, then they can choose whether to apply them or not to their project. This is a 2.3
acre site and as I noted the surrounding uses include office to the north, Greer park to the south and
west, and West Bayshore Road and Highway 101 to the east. I also want to note that the project is
planning to have seven units of the 48 as affordable housing. They are eligible for a density bonus and
they plan to request a density bonus concession for an increased floor area ratio of 1.08:1. Right now
4.a
Packet Pg. 173
City of Palo Alto Page 3
under the ROLM standards for exclusively residential, which follows RM30 requirements, they would be
only eligible for .6:1 floor area ratio. I just wanted to note that. They will also be requesting parking
allowances in accordance with state density bonus allowances under the new Assembly Bill 2345, which
the city is currently going through the process of updating their density bonus code requirements under
18.15 of our code to align with that Assembly Bill. The formal application will also include requests for a
design enhancement exception for the height of the towers, which exceeds the 35-foot height limit. They
are also requesting that the Architectural Review Board weigh in on the use of some of the private open
space toward common open space. This is allowed in accordance with our municipal code under
18.13.040(e). There is an allowance to use some of the private open space toward common open space
if it increases the use of the open space in a way that is beneficial to the residents. They will also be
requesting a sound wall between West Bayshore Road and Highway 101. Transportation and Public
Works and Planning are still evaluating a number of different options for this proposal. We are still trying
to determine whether this is going to be feasible or not and how it might be designed to ensure that we
are maintaining what we feel is appropriate bike lanes and not degrading the existing bike lane on West
Bayshore Road. The key input that we are looking for from the Architectural Review Board today is just
any input you have on the overall design. In particular, we are also interested in your input on the
design enhancement exception for the towers, and then the use of private open space as common open
space and whether the Architectural Review Board would be supportive of that, and any other input that
you have. Following this study session, the applicant may choose to file a formal application and as I
noted we are currently processing a pre-application for the project but we anticipate providing a response
to that within the next week. Then the applicant is required after that to file an application within 180
days of deeming that pre-application complete. With that, I will turn it back to you and recommend that
you hear from the applicant next.
Chair Thompson: Thank you, Claire. Let’s hear from the applicant.
[Setting up presentation.]
Elaine Breeze: Good morning, everyone. My name is Elaine Breeze. I am Senior Vice President of
SummerHill Housing Group. Thank you for the thorough staff presentation. For those of you who aren’t
familiar with SummerHill Homes, we are a privately-owned development company specializing in
communities of distinction and have been located in Palo Alto for the last 34 years. We haven’t worked
in the city for a few years but are excited to have the opportunity back and working on this great site.
Most recently we worked with the Elks Club to redevelop their lodge on El Camino Real and develop the
Redwood Gate community behind it. Prior to that, we redeveloped the old Palo Alto Medical Foundation
property south of Forrest Avenue, which included the University Park, Woodmark, and Weatherly
comminutes. We also developed the Echelon condominiums off of East Meadow Circle. This morning we
have our design team present to answer any questions the Board may have. Ralph Strauss with SDG
Architects, Ryan Hansen from Carlson, Barbee and Gibson Civil Engineers, and Shari Van Dorn of Van
Dorhan Abed Landscape Architects. You'll note our current plan set does not include landscape plans but
Shari has recently joined the team and has a lot of experience with us here in Palo Alto. Lastly, John
Hickey, who pulled up the slides, is our Director of Development for SummerHill Homes. John will
provide an overview now of our site context, our planning approach, and our proposed design.
John Hickey, Director of Development: Thank you. Good morning, Board Members. It is a pleasure to
be here. We thank you very much for taking the time to review our preliminary application. Your
feedback is very helpful to us as we move forward with the project. I want to start by echoing what
Elaine said. We are very excited about this site because we think it is a great location for a new
residential community. As you probably know, the site is less than a mile from the groceries and
pharmacies and other neighborhood services that you had at midtown and over in Edgewood. There is a
Montessori school right next door and Ohlone Elementary School is just a short walk away. Of course,
we have Greer Park right next door. I also want to point out that the site, as Claire mentioned, is
currently occupied by an office building and I think that is key because the project won’t be displacing
any existing residents which we think is a major plus. Just to show you the actual location here. This
slide shows you a view of the existing one-story office building that is on the site. It was built in the
1970s. I personally happen to live very close to the site so I am quite familiar with it. It is where the
4.a
Packet Pg. 174
City of Palo Alto Page 4
dog and I walk on most days, but for those of you who aren’t familiar with it, I want to show you some
photos to give you a sense of what the shared-edge conditions are between the park and the site. This
photo here shows the view from the area of the park that is just southeast of the site. You’ll note that
here the park is actually a few feet higher than the grade of the site itself. We will talk about that a bit
more in a moment. This photo here shows you a view from the southwest. Again, as you can see, there
are some dense bushes, some trees along the edge here on the park side of the fence, and those screen
the site from the park. Similarly, the view here from the northwest has, again, dense vegetation along
the fence line screening the view of the site from the park. Again, those trees and bushes are on the
park side, not the project site; they will remain. This is a view from across the park over towards Simkins
Court. Again, you can see all of the vegetation, the trees along the shared edge there between the park
and the project site. As I mentioned, there is also a Montessori school next door. This is a view from the
project site looking at the Montessori school. This area of the school is primarily used for storage. It is
not a play area or anything like that for the kids in the back there. As the staff report explained, we are
proposing to construct 48 new three-story town homes. These town homes will be all three-bedroom.
They will range from about 1,500 square feet to 2,000 square feet in size and each will have a two-car
garage. Claire pointed out that it would qualify for a parking reduction, which is true, but we are meeting
the city’s parking standard as well. I just wanted to clarify that. Seven of the homes will be dedicated as
affordable units for moderate-income households. The buildings are oriented, as you'll see, to provide an
active presence along West Bayshore Road and over here towards Greer Park. Also towards the common
open space, the community open space here in the middle. That open space is a bonus. Obviously, we
are next to the park which is a great asset but we have this community space too which will have casual
seating, outdoor dining areas, tables, and a large active play space there. We have walkways you will
see throughout the site to provide connectivity from West Bayshore over to the park to the community
area and to all of the homes. As Claire mentioned, we are proposing a 14-foot sound wall along the
eastside of West Bayshore, which is very important to us for the benefit of our homeowners to reduce
the amount of freeway noise. The staff report noted that the site is in a flood zone (A)(E)(11) which is
important because it means that we need to withstand flood elevations that would reach approximately
10.5 feet during a 100-year storm event. To achieve this, we need to raise the building pads so that the
finished floor is at least one foot above that flood elevation. In addition, consistent with city policy, we
will be creating the site and designing the site so that the overland release of any excess water during
that 100-year storm event will be directed towards West Bayshore Road rather than back towards the
park. That means that the rear of the site needs to be raised enough so that it is actually draining
towards West Bayshore. To achieve this, we will be constructing a retaining wall along the size and rear
of the site. As we work through the design process, we will look for ways to minimize the height of that
wall but based on our initial analysis, we anticipate that that wall is going to need to be about three to
five feet tall at its highest point. It will be lower than that at other points along the sides. I just want to
mention, though, as you saw from the photos I showed earlier, most of that wall is going to be screened
from view by the trees and bushes along the edge of the park but we will work with our landscape
architect to develop an attractive design for the wall so that it blends in. We are also going to be
working with our arborist to make sure that we minimize the impact on the adjacent trees and potentially
even relocate some of the trees that we have on-site to the extent that that is feasible. Also, we will be
preserving the existing street trees along West Bayshore to the extent that is feasible as well. As I
mentioned, seven of the units will be designated as BMR units. Based on that, we will be requesting a
concession under the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance. That concession will be to allow an increase in the
FAR to approximately 1.08. That will allow us to provide substantially more homes than we would
otherwise be able to. We will be requesting the design enhancement exception and our architect will
discuss that a little bit more in a moment. With the density bonus concession and the design
enhancement exception, the project is fully consistent with the current zoning. That means height,
density, setbacks; so we won’t be requesting any zoning amendments or variances. With that, I would
like to pass the microphone to Ralph so that he can describe the architecture, please.
Chair Thompson: Mr. Hickey, I just want to let you know there are three minutes left.
Mr. Hickey: Three minutes. Thank you, I appreciate that.
Ralph Strauss: Good morning, Board Members. I will be brief in my description.
4.a
Packet Pg. 175
City of Palo Alto Page 5
[Setting up presentation.]
Mr. Strauss: As John mentioned, three-unit types and six-unit buildings. The smaller size of the building
is very complimentary to the site planning of the site and allows us to face all of the buildings outward or
to the central green in the project. This is contemporary-style architecture and we are working to
combine forms both identifying individual units while creating a unified building appearance. This is four-
sided architecture. We are using hip roof and parapet roof forms to add eave line articulation. We’ve got
a variety of materials, exterior plaster, horizontal siding, and wood railings that are highly articulated in
their planes across the frontage; it creates shadow opportunities and depths in the elevations. We are
combining window shapes and sizes in multiple patterns to further enhance the elevations. The window
frames would be a dark material and this is four-sided architecture. The treatment that we are applying
to the structure goes to all four sides of the buildings. Related to the design enhancement exception, this
exception request is related to the tower elements that you see on the front elevations of the building.
The average height of those components is 39.5 feet, relative to the 35-foot allowed in the zoning
ordnance but we feel that these are important to add to the roof articulation of the buildings and these
components will be visible both from the pedestrian level where people will see a nice break in the eave
lines and also from the second-floor private outdoor living spaces in the units and from the surrounding
community. We think they add a very nice component to the massing and scale of the (inaudible) in to
the roof forms that we are creating. That is a very brief description. I am available for any other
questions. I should add we are using the color allocation across the elevations to enhance the plane
breaks and the other articulation that we have on these buildings. Thank you.
Chair Thompson: Thank you.
Mr. Hickey: I assume we only have 20 seconds left or so.
Chair Thompson: Twenty-four seconds.
Mr. Hickey: I just wanted to close by saying we look forward to receiving your comments and we are
here to answer questions as well. Thanks very much.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. I forgot to ask the applicant for the record.
[Spells Names]
Chair Thompson: Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak?
Mr. Nguyen: Chair, we currently do not have any raised hands.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s bring it back to the Board. Does the Board have any questions of the
applicant?
Board Member Baltay: I certainly do. I am not sure if I am the only one, Osma.
Chair Thompson: I'm sorry.
Board Member Baltay: I have a couple of questions, yes. Can I dive in?
Chair Thompson: Yeah, go ahead.
Board Member Baltay: Let me start with the architect, please. I am just trying to make sense of your
elevation drawings relative to the floor plan. I understand that this is all conceptual but when I look at
the elevation drawings, say the rear elevation, it shows three double garages at the very center of the
building. When I look at the floor plans, I don’t see how that works. Is it possible that maybe the floor
plans are on the upper level of the unit? What am I missing here? I am saying this just because Mr.
4.a
Packet Pg. 176
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Hickey alluded to the fact that the building is fully parked. That would mean you would need size double
garage doors on that elevation. I only see five.
Mr. Hickey: If I could jump in I can answer that question. You are exactly right, Board Member B. The
floor plans, the building plans shown on our site plan do not correspond exactly with the elevations. We
are, as you said, in the preliminary stages here and as we are refining things some of this will need to be
coordinated as we make a formal application. What you are seeing on the site plan is accurate. Those
are all two-car garages but two of those garages are tandem garages. You will see it is a front and back
there. In fact, what you're seeing, even though the sequence of garages that you're seeing on the
elevations does not match with the site plan, there will still be -- what appear to be -- single-car garages
from the front, and then four two-car-wide garages. Does that make sense?
Board Member Baltay: Okay, thank you for that information. The second question, regarding the
architecture again, is on the side elevation. On the lower level, I see what looks like a recessed set of
glass sliding doors. Is that right? Can you explain what building functions inside are expressed on the
outside on the side elevation?
Mr. Strauss: Yes, on the lower level on the side elevation, those are the utility cabinets for the buildings.
They are at the ends of the building buildings but we are recessing them into the mass of the building
and creating articulation around them.
Board Member Baltay: You're saying that’s like the electric meter and gas meter and such.
Mr. Strauss: Correct, although this would be an all-electric project.
Board Member Baltay: You have floodplain requirements though, don’t you? You may want to take a
look at that and make sure that’s actually viable, but it is not living space of any kind? That’s what I am
really driving towards?
Mr. Strauss: That is correct. It is not living space. The building elevations will be above the floodplain
level (inaudible).
Board Member Baltay: Yes, I understand. This is conceptual, I don’t really care in detail if it lines up or
not, I just want to understand what other functions within the building are expressed on the side. Are
those exterior balconies, on the second and third floor?
Mr. Strauss: Yes, on the third floor in this case.
Board Member Baltay: Then the small square window and the other component, what is actually behind
those windows?
Mr. Strauss: A stairwell. Those windows are climbing along with the stairwell on the exterior of the
building.
Board Member Baltay: I see. Okay. There are no actual living rooms or anything facing the side
elevations?
Mr. Strauss: There sometimes may be a bedroom at the lowest level towards the front of the home
adjacent to the porch and it may have a window to the side at the lower level. As John mentioned, these
elevations are works in progress.
Board Member Baltay: Second question, Osma, if you don’t mind my continuing is regarding the
applicant mentioned a retaining wall at the back of the site. Can you explain in more detail what grading
requirements you are facing are?
Mr. Hickey: I would be happy to. I am going to shift to a preliminary site plan that you can see here.
4.a
Packet Pg. 177
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Board Member Baltay: Is that in our packet as well?
Mr. Hickey: No, this is part of the slide. There is a grading sheet in the packet that you received but this
is, as I mentioned, due diligence. We are constantly refining as we go through prior to making the
formal application. We have already come up with some additional ideas since we provided what we
gave you initially. The essence here is that the portion -- I don’t know if you can see my cursor -- the
portion along here needs to be high enough on the rear of the site to be able to drain forward to the
front of the site. That is the City’s policy is to have… I want to back up for a second and point out that
we will comply with all of the storm water treatment requirements. For ordinary storm events, we will be
treating all of the storm water onsite through bioretention and then that will drain to the storm drain and
that would go to the front of the site. Now, in major storms, that is 100-year storm events or bigger,
that is more than the design capacity for the storm water treatment, which means you need to be able to
account for the overland release of any excess storm water. The city does not want that to flow to the
rear of the site. They don’t want it flowing to the park. They want it flowing forward to West Bayshore.
In order to accommodate that, we need to be able to grade the site such that the rear of the site is high
enough that it will drain toward the front. To achieve that, we need to be able to lift the site, which
means we will have a retaining wall along the rear of the site. As I mentioned, you can see it is very
small on my screen. I hope it is a little larger for people but right now I think it says six feet here. We
have already identified a way that we think we can reduce that by a foot and we are exploring additional
opportunities to be able to reduce the height as well. The highest point of the wall is really going to be
along here. Once you get over to the southwest corner of the site, the adjacent grade on the park rises
substantially and the matching grade will be much closer at this point and there may not even need to be
a retaining wall. Over on this south side of the site, right now this portion of the park is actually about
two feet higher than the edge of the park. Even if we raised this portion of the site… corresponds to
what is the primary predominant grade along the park as well. We will explore all of those options as we
refine the design and go through the planning review process.
Board Member Baltay: Is it possible to have some other means of meeting that storm drain requirement?
Say a series of storm pumps or something rather than grading the site?
Mr. Hickey: The site needs to be raised up to be able to bring the building living areas out of the
floodplain. That is an absolute requirement. You were pointing that out I think a moment ago when you
were mentioning since this is the floodplain the utility cabinets would need to be raised. That is true.
Not only do we have the utility cabinets in there but we have living space on the first floor on all of these
units. The building pad itself needs to be lifted to that minimum elevation, absolutely. It is just a
question of what we are doing and once we are doing that, we obviously need to raise the access drive
as well so that we can reach the garage apron. The question really is just what is the elevation going to
be of this common area here and the areas along the edge. That is what we are working though with
staff. Essentially, we need to be at this grade at the building. That is a given.
Board Member Baltay: Osma, if you don’t mind me getting detailed, what is the actual grade on the site
that you need? What’s your finished base ground level, the level of the driveway? The floodplain you
said is 10.5. Is that the (a)(e) number you have to work to?
Mr. Hickey: Yes. (A)(e)(11) is technically the flood zone but according to the city, they have measured it
out and 10.5 is the elevation. That means that we need to be at, at least, 11.5 with our finished floor.
Board Member Baltay: Right. What is the level of the ground right now and what do you want to make
it to make your buildings work?
Mr. Hickey: It varies. Right now, if you're at the curb along the front here it is about seven.
Board Member Baltay: Seven, and you need to be at 11.5 you said.
4.a
Packet Pg. 178
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Mr. Hickey: Yes, exactly. If you go into the site, some of the parking areas are low but then as you get
to the rear of the site it actually gets a little bit higher and the building itself that is there right now is
elevated. We haven’t surveyed to find out exactly what the floor elevation is there for that existing
building but it appears to somewhere between nine and eleven.
Board Member Baltay: How about the ground level on this drawing here on the lower-left corner. I bet
that is the lowest part of it where your cursor is now. In that area what is the current ground level and
how much do you need to raise it approximately?
Mr. Hickey: Actually, I don’t think that is the lowest level at the current point. I apologize, I don’t know
if I am going to be able to blow it up to be able to see it on here. If my civil engineer hears this and he
remembers what the existing grade he might be able to chime in.
(Crosstalk)
Ms. Raybould: 12.2, I am looking at it on the plans.
Board Member Baltay: What was it, Claire?
Ms. Raybould: 12.2.
Mr. Hickey: No, that would be the finished grade.
Ms. Raybould: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Chair Thompson: It shows the existing grade…
Mr. Hickey: Oh, six.
Chair Thompson: …six feet.
Board Member Baltay: Six feet, and you're proposing to bring it to 12.2 because you want it to be above
the floodplain?
Mr. Hickey: That’s correct.
Ms. Breeze: About eight. Is that what you just said, Ryan?
Mr. Hickey: Yeah, I think the existing is at about eight. I think it is a little bit lower on the school side
which is where that six-foot shot is.
Board Member Baltay: Okay. I don’t want to drag this on during a series of questions, but I think it is
important to point out to the Board is that what you're really doing is grading this site up not just for
storm drainage but also just to meet the floodplain requirements, which is legitimate. I just want to be
clear about what you're up to here.
Mr. Hickey: That’s a fair characterization, Board Member. Thank you.
Board Member Baltay: Okay. My last question, Osma, if you don’t mind my continuing, again, is, Claire,
you mentioned private open space and want us to comment on that. Do you have any description of
where this private open space is? How should we be evaluating that?
Ms. Raybould: What they are requesting is that some of the private open space, which presumably
would be provided as balconies, would be provided as common open space. It is increasing the common
area.
4.a
Packet Pg. 179
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Board Member Baltay: I am afraid… I'm sorry, I'm dense. I just don’t understand. You mean that there
will be fewer balconies because there is a larger common space or the opposite?
Ms. Raybould: Correct, less private open space, more common open space. More grass area or other…
Board Member Baltay: But there are no unit floor plans showing us what that translates into is there?
It’s just sort of a conceptual idea? Is that what you're asking us for?
Ms. Raybould: Conceptual idea, yes. I know that currently, they are proposing some private balconies.
There would be some private open space provided but some of the private open space… the applicant
didn’t indicate to staff how much might be allowed. If you have input on how much might be acceptable
that would be…
Mr. Hickey: Through the Chair, may I respond?
Chair Thompson: Sure.
Mr. Hickey: Is that a yes?
Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Mr. Hickey: That’s a great question, Board Member. We are trying to gauge what our options are here
because as I mentioned we do have 18 units that face towards West Bayshore. Even with the sound
wall, the second and third floors are going to be at a height that they are going to be close to the
elevations or potentially above the sound wall. Our concern is that the decks or balconies that we would
ordinarily provide, some of those may not be viable as useful outdoor spaces because of the freeway
noise. What we would like to do is be able to still make sure that we are meeting our requirements for
the total amount of usable open space on the site and still providing enough amenity space for the
residents but rather than providing it as balconies that may not actually really be a benefit to the
residents, we want to instead meet that requirement through expanding the common area open space,
which is this area that is much more shielded by the existing buildings. As Claire said, there is a provision
that especially allows for that in the code. We have no idea how often that has been used, what the
sensitivity level is to using it, so we were trying to get feedback on whether that was something that the
ARB would be open to.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I have no other questions, Osma.
Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Baltay. Are there any other questions from Board Members
of the applicant?
Vice Chair Lee: Chair Osma, I do have a couple of questions but since this is an informal preliminary, I
am happy… if you are comfortable as a study session to speak back and forth with the applicant. It is as
you will.
Chair Thompson: Yeah, this is a study session. Go ahead and ask your questions.
Vice Chair Lee: Okay, great. Stepping back and thank you for this. I am excited about this project. I
just was wondering if maybe you could speak a little bit about sustainability and your goals there in a
general sense. I just wanted to get a picture for that. Then I had a question regarding that pedestrian
access on the south side, and as I understand it was two feet off there on grade. I just wanted to see
what your thoughts are on that. Then, I noticed that there are some things that are common on some of
these projects, like mailboxes and trash and where is that on the plans? It is something to think about
on those private streets.
[Adjusting Audio.]
4.a
Packet Pg. 180
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Mr. Hickey: Thank you, Board Member. I will try to make sure I answer all three of those. I am going
to start them in reverse though since that is the direction my brain tends to go. Yeah, your points are
great about trash and collection and postal delivery. What you might have noticed is that we have a little
drop-off spot here. This is not what we would call a true parking space. It is more meant to be a quick
delivery type of spot. Again, this is very preliminary, this is something that we work through typically
during the formal application process but we would anticipate that we would try to keep a central mail
kiosk somewhere pretty close to the center of the site and we try to make sure that there is a place
where the postal carrier can stop nearby and deliver the mail. I would anticipate that we would probably
have the mail kiosk somewhere in here, maybe in the interior there but that is our anticipation. We
always make sure that we plan for that during our entitlement process so that we are not stuck after we
get through entitlements trying to figure out during the construction drawing stage where that was
supposed to go. With regard to waste collection and recycling collection, it’s a great point. We have
found from past experience that that can often be a real challenge if we don’t address it early. We have
already reached out to waste collection to review our site plan. You may have noticed in our packet
there is a site plan that shows the template for the turning for the waste collection. What we will do is
each of these units will have space in the garage to be able to have three bins, a compost bin, a recycling
bin, and a landfill bin. On collection day, that will be pulled out to the apron of the garage where there
will be enough room in front without blocking the travel way but also without being under an overhang
because the lift arm needs to have enough room to lift the bins. There will be enough room to
accommodate that. Let’s see; you asked about sustainability. Obviously, we will be complying with the
new Title 24, which is very stringent. We will be also complying with the City’s Reach Code, which means
that the project will be all electric. There will be no gas appliances at the project. In addition, we
anticipate, in order to meet our Title 24 requirements, which you know have sort of a scoring system, we
will be providing solar on the units as well. Elaine, was there anything… I remember we were discussing
that earlier. Let me just make sure there wasn’t anything important that I missed. Oh, and EV
chargers. Obviously, we are setting up the site so that there will be adequate capacity in all of the units
to be able to provide a level two EV charger. I think I missed one of your three questions. What was the
third?
Vice Chair Lee: I was just wondering about that pedestrian access…
(Crosstalk)
Mr. Hickey: Yes, we were discussing that actually just a couple of days ago. We realized with the grade
change and the possibility that would need to be an ADA accessible connection, we may have challenges
with the grade there. That is something that we will continue to work with staff on because we think it
would be an asset for the community to be able to have a direct connection here but we would need to
be able to do it in such a way that we make sure that is an accessible connection.
Ms. Raybould: I just want to note that I did discuss that with community services division, whether they
would be supportive of an access. They said that they would be supportive of an access point as long as
it doesn’t preclude them from anything they might want to do in the park in the future. We would be
evaluating to look at the location and makes sure it makes sense, if they are able to provide it.
Vice Chair Lee: Thanks for those responses. Those were just some questions that came up.
Chair Thompson: Thank you, Vice Chair Lee. Are there any other questions from Board Member Lew or
Hirsch of the applicant?
Board Member Hirsch: I have just one at this point.
Chair Thompson: Go ahead.
Board Member Hirsch: Visitor parking, where or how do you deal with it?
4.a
Packet Pg. 181
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Mr. Hickey: That’s a great question. First of all, the city’s code for multi-family developments, such as
this, does not actually require any onsite guest parking. We are providing one ADA space and one guest
parking space here. In addition, I think this drop-off delivery space is going to be very important too
because it is not going to be blocking any driveways. As many of us now are receiving dinner or
whatever it is by delivery, so it is useful to have that. In addition, right now there are limited amount of
existing on-street parking. As Claire eluded to, we’re working with the city to try and decide what makes
sense as the new street section along West Bayshore because we would like to be able to and need to be
able to have a sound wall on the east side of West Bayshore, but we also want to make sure that we are
accommodating the city’s bike plans. What we are anticipating is the existing on-street parking would be
eliminated; however, there is still a lot of on-street parking down here and for those of you who are
familiar with the area, you'll know that Colorado is just beyond this park here. There is a lot of on-street
parking along Colorado. The other thing that I mentioned is one of the nice things about this site is we
don’t have any immediate residential neighbors right now. If there is any on-street parking, it is very
unlikely that is it is going to be something that is going to be bothering any adjacent neighbors. The key,
too, is that we are complying with the city’s requirements; in fact, exceeding them because we are
providing those two guest spaces which aren’t required.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Are there any more questions, Board
Member Hirsch? You just had the one?
Board Member Hirsch: Just that one at the moment.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Thank you, fellow Board Members, for asking questions. A lot of mine were
asked already but I do have one or two more. Does the applicant have thoughts on the materials of the
retaining wall and the sound wall?
Mr. Hickey: For the retaining wall, we are anticipating MSE, mechanically stabilized earth wall. It is
basically a stacked wall with an anchor behind and the finish on that are several options. We will work
with our landscape architect as we go through design whether we want some sort of smooth finish.
Whatever it will be, it will be something that is a natural tone so that it blends well with what is around.
Our goal is really to have that wall blend in. We will probably also be looking ways to actually… as I have
mentioned before, I don’t think anybody is going to be able to see the wall because the dense vegetation
along the park there but to the extent that anybody is looking though we don’t want it to be something
that’s glaring. We may even look for opportunities to use landscaping to cascade over the wall and
things like that. I should mention because it will be elevated, we will have an open guardrail for the
fence to keep anybody from falling over the edge but that would only need to be about 42 inches tall in
order to comply with the requirements. For the sound wall, we have a couple of different ideas. You
probably know that to the south when the Sterling Park community down by Loma Verde was built down
by Loma Verde was built, they installed a sound wall along the east side of West Bayshore. That’s a 14-
foot sound wall. It’s precast panels with columns and that actually is painted, I believe, on the West
Bayshore side but it is more textured on the freeway side. It is actually two different colors on the
different sides. That’s to the south. That’s one option that we would be interested in looking at. The
other option is to do something similar to the sound wall that is just to the north of the site by the
Prometheus project, which is a stacked concrete block wall. We are happy to work with the city on the
design of that but the key for us is just really having that wall because it is critical to making sure that
this is a pleasant place for the residents.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. My other question is for the architect. I see maybe four materials on this
façade but I wanted to get some clarity on the thoughts on the choices of material colors that you’re
presenting.
Mr. Strauss: Certainly. The materials are exterior plaster, horizontal pal siding, and then a space to dec
railing which will be a wood material on a steel frame. That will be a stained material. The allocation of
the materials are designed to draw attention to the fronts of the units and enhanced by the colors. The
lighter colors and textures near the entry doors but then also to accentuate the plane breaks so that we
4.a
Packet Pg. 182
City of Palo Alto Page 12
can return the horizontal siding, for example, back and terminated inside corner of the plane breaks and
use it as a way to create this overall texture across the front of the elevation.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Am I right that there are two beiges of that plaster? There is a light beige and
a dark beige.
Mr. Strauss: Correct, body one, body two on the plaster. The siding is all one color and then the lighter
color that you see on the elevation is the railing material.
Mr. Hickey: Chair, may I for just a moment?
Chair Thompson: Sure.
Mr. Hickey: Just a reminder that this is preliminary. We will continue to work with staff and the ARB as
we go through the process. If you have particular thoughts on the colors now we would very much like
to hear them but we are not suggesting that these are the absolute final colors.
Chair Thompson: Okay. I just have one more question. Thank you for bearing with us on this. For the
architect, conceptually in terms of the concept of the building, what would you say that you are trying to
achieve in the design?
Mr. Strauss: We are trying to achieve a nice articulated building both within the project and from the
perimeter since we have accomplished a wonderfully outfacing site plane where every building is facing
outward or to the common open space. We are looking to articulate and create visual interest.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Thank you. If there is nothing else, we can bring it back to the Board for
feedback. Thank you, applicants, for answering our questions. Who would like to go first? Board
Member Lew, I’ll call on you.
Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I will disclose that I did look at the Sterling Park
project and I also looked at several old aerial photos to see what the park used to be. I was curious
about what the drive-in theatre that used to be on the park site looked like. I downloaded some aerial
photos of that as well. I also looked at the back of… it’s on 1530 Page Mill Road where Stanford built the
new housing project and there is a six or seven-foot wood fence on top of a six-foot-high concrete
retaining wall and there is an existing chain link fence as well.
Board Member Baltay: What is the address, Alex?
Board Member Lew: 1530 Page Mill Road.
Board Member Baltay: 1630?
Board Member Lew: 1530 Page Mill Road. I just want to say that in most places the fence and retaining
wall are screened and look fine, but there is one area where there is no landscaping because of an ADA
access path. There is one section where it is completely exposed and it is pretty hideous in my opinion.
We might want to take a look at that when this project comes forward. I think my main site concerns
are the sound wall. I did look at the sound wall with respect to the bike lane at the site as well as
Sterling Park. I think that that is an issue but I am open to it. Two, on the site access, which I think
Grace was mentioning before, the main entrance of Sterling Park has a zigzagging handicap ramp that
dodges utility volts and pad-mounted equipment and it really doesn’t all come together. If you look at
Sterling Park, you can see there was a nice aesthetic idea and then it just sort of all fell apart and I don’t
want that to happen again on this project. If you can separate the utilities from the main entrance that
might help; it seems like you have two or three areas where you might be able to do that but I think the
grading is going to be a challenge. I want to make sure that you have enough space at the main
entrance to make something nice. I think the third site issue is Greer Park. I think we need to see a
street elevation of the two facades facing the park. There is existing landscaping in most of those
4.a
Packet Pg. 183
City of Palo Alto Page 13
locations but it seems like some existing trees are going to be removed. There is potential for big change
and also in a couple of locations, there is no landscaping. I think that that is an issue. On the park side,
it seems constrained because I think there is a baseball or ball field chain link fence inside the park. It
seems like there may be some constraints on the park side. I think also on the site planning when I was
looking at Sterling Park, it seems to me like landscaping on the inward garage facing elevation really does
help the buildings. I do want to see what you guys are planning for that. I think I did see some mention
of it in the plans but I think that’s really important. On the architecture, on the towers, I am sort of
inclined to that. I did want to point out a project. It is an older project; it might be 20 years old. It is
Jacob’s Court on El Camino Way in Palo Alto. It is only a two-story townhouse project but they used the
towers in the master bedrooms and they have clear-story windows on two or three sides of the tower. I
have seen the units because I know an architect who used to live in one of them and it really made the
unit so much nicer. I hope that your towers aren’t just things that are added on into the attic. I hope
you can make it into something really desirable. I think that is all that I have on this. I think on the
towers we want to see it facing the park. I can see an argument for making them on West Bayshore. I
am not certain about it on the park side because of the grade change. It is also facing Eichler
neighborhoods which generally have low-swung roofs. I think we do need to see that in the streetscape
elevation. My last comment is on HVAC. If you were doing mini-splits, I hope that they are screened or
they are somewhere hidden. If they're on a balcony then do a solid railing so they are not visible to the
public. That’s all of my comments. Thank you, guys.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Who’d like to go next? Board Member Hirsch?
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Thank you for the presentation. I do like the elevations very much. I
think the issues that Alex raised about the towers is worth considering. My concerns are pretty much
what I had asked before -- that the guest parking really the answer really wasn’t sufficient for me -- that
it should include onsite guest parking. It somehow has to be worked into the scheme here but how to
work parking. This project, as a prototype, requires this private access for each unit for two cars, or
tandem, or parallel, therefore, the road B street becomes a thorough fair of cars in and cars out and cars
parking under buildings. I personally think that may work for some aspect of the project but it really isn't
making a wonderful project out of this. I like the way the Oak Court on Ramona and Channing works
very well with parking underneath. Then, of course, you explained all of the flood issues but in a way
that could be solved if there was a platform and platform housing for a portion for the property you could
accommodate a significant amount of parking under that platform and actually avoid the issue or find
another way in which you can deal with the water through a parking structure. It would then put the
units on a level up and maybe shared space community space. That’s not quite the same kind of housing
anymore but this brings me to another issue that Palo Alto… I don’t know whether it is 40/60 or what the
actual percentage of rental versus ownership but it seems to me that a really nice project like this ought
to have a mix like Palo Alto and offer the possibility of rental housing within the format of rental and
ownership housing. It happens all of the time and it wouldn’t be unreasonable and perhaps it would be a
denser housing on top of a deck that’s a parking deck. Then, the private housing, although the car
would be kept in what might be a central parking area, it would allow more use of the public space,
rather than everything being car-oriented here. Kind of like the new urbanism idea of the way
communities like this ought to be developed. This is a far from where you are right now and I don’t
know if it at all possible but as a prototype, I think it would be a better one for a community to have a
common parking area. That would include, of course, common guest spaces and to have a better use of
the rest of the property for private use. One thought about this, again, in contradiction to the water
table, everything is up higher but then you enter these units and what do you get on the ground floor? A
staircase to get to a living room, I'm assuming, upstairs with bedrooms on a third level? That’s what, a
guest room on the ground floor of some sort behind the garage. Access to the ground is not at all easy
here. You have to go down a whole level and then the space below is really private, maybe, for that
one-bedroom to access the outside. I didn’t ask the question but we really were not given a full set of
plans here to know exactly how the ground floor is being used except the garage and there is something
behind it but none of the units were developed to the level that we could really read how they relate to
the ground. This is a quite a radical change from what you're showing but I think it is an important
concept to think about here because, after all, the use of the outdoor space is important, not just as a
landscape to look at but because it could be used privately. I do think that a raised deck does solve
4.a
Packet Pg. 184
City of Palo Alto Page 14
certain problems; it definitely gets the cars in a single location and allows for the entry to houses off of a
tighter relationship, maybe more of a muse-like thing that doesn’t have to be a street-wide width. I
guess you get my picture but it is a very different scheme than what you're showing. I am going to be
an outlander here; an outsider here for this project, no doubt. This is my feeling that it isn't really the
right project for an areas as wonderful as this is adjacent to a park, all of those facilities nearby with a
problem, of course, of the sound which I think you could solve the way you have described it. It is a
conflict between really how you deal with the low land aspect of this property and making it into a space
that is really useful for the families here, which I think it could be better done the way I have described.
Thank you.
Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Baltay
Board Member Baltay: Thank you, everybody. I have a number of things to say. Out of the gate, I am
really pleased with this application and with the fundamental ideas here. I think it is really going to be a
fantastic place for these housing units and I am pleased to see that SummerHill Homes is tackling the
project. You guys have done some other good work in Palo Alto and it is appreciated. I think this is a
good project. I think you guys are good people to be doing it. I think the sound wall is going to be
critical to making this site livable. I have looked at the sound wall opposite Sterling park that Alex was
talking about and I compared that to a sound wall just further north along Bayshore, which’s is a similar
masonry wall with a heavy landscaping screening. There's ivy growing over it or something. The
landscaping makes all the difference in my opinion. I would encourage you to find a way to get greenery
involved with the sound wall, and also I encourage staff to really find a way to make it happen; without
the sound wall this site is really tough. It is very loud from the freeway. It is right there. It is a narrow
strip to fit that in. On the site planning of your project, that comes to my basic criticism of it which is
that at least right now the buildings are all too much the same. It’s the same design, six or seven times
around and the site plan then suffers from it. When you make a basic parti of your site -- a real issue
with the units facing the freeway with the noise and it is a fairly busy road, and a real opportunity with
the sites facing south towards the park. It’s a wonderful park and I can’t imagine people living in this
unit not wanting to go out to hat park frequently. With your site planning, you have one possible gate of
sorts off to the side. It really closes you off and makes you do the long way around just to get to other
aspects of Greer Park. It is a very popular place on the weekends and a lot of people hanging out there.
There is a wonderful picnic area, there are all kinds of activities. A lot of youth soccer games are held at
Greer Park. I think it is incumbent upon you to find multiple access points from your development out to
the part and to make it as integrated as possible. I understand that you’re dealing with the bureaucracy
of the city and then you have an elevation difference and you have ADA issues. All of that aside, I think
it is really important to find ways to let your property connect to the park in a better way for the benefit
of your residents. They will inherently want to get to that park and have just one small gate won’t cut it.
On the site planning, I think it is important that the end units have a different design so that they can
take advantage of views into the park and things like that. It is a shame to have such wonderful
southern open space that you rarely have on other developments in town; certainly the one Alex was
mentioning, Sterling Park, doesn’t have that opportunity. You have that here; a large park that is really
attractive, you'll be slightly raised above it so that deals with a lot of privacy and security issues and you
really ought to design these units to take advantage of that. What it means is more work on the design
because you’re not going to have the same building six times over. I understand that is more difficult to
design but that’s what it takes to really integrate into a site like this with all of these opportunities. I’ll
come around to David’s comments regarding guest parking. I think that’s essential that you have not
just a few places for visitors but also places for the Uber and the DoorDash drivers and all of that stuff
which is happening so much these days. Every project we see it just seems to be underdone. The code
doesn’t acknowledge or require sufficient space for that but I think for your property and building to
function properly you'll need to have at least one drop-off space per building I would think. The same
applies to visitor parking. I really encourage you to go the extra mile. This is one place where it is really
for your own interest to go beyond the code here and figure out how to get that to work. I would
strongly support even a reduction in required parking. Some units could have only one space, not two, in
order to allow you to have more quick drop-off space. It is so critical. The way your site is designed,
you have plenty of street parking but it really is difficult to park off the site and walk on. It’s a pretty
long walk to come to see some of those units if you're parking on the street. People will instead just
4.a
Packet Pg. 185
City of Palo Alto Page 15
block the traffic. They’ll just park on the side of one of those roads creating a safety hazard if you don’t
design some other way to get to it. It is really in your interest as well as the city’s to find a way to get
more transient parking on your property somehow. I think the building design overall is working towards
a handsome design which will be very attractive and easily approvable. I would like to see greater
variation in the units, again, to reflect what is going on. I appreciate Alex’s comments about the tower
units being certainly positive elements on the facades, but if you can then integrate them into what is
going on inside the building, that gives them a lot more meaning and sense and I think it will make the
building even more attractive. It certainly makes the design enhancement exception easier to approve
because it’s a genuine enhancement and an enhancement to the interior of the building as well as just
the aesthetic appearance. I took a look at the project you did at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Fronting Heritage Park. I was thinking at first just how do you relate to the park but as I walked around
there I was impressed by the much greater variety of architectural detail on all of the units. I’m sure the
floor plans have some similarities but the units really felt more like individual homes. At least what is
presented to us here really seems to be the same building just cut and pasted six or seven times over.
I’d really appreciate if you could just roll up your sleeves and design each building differently to give
more variety and texture to the whole project. That is so essential ultimately. Regarding the design
enhancement exception, in principle I am in favor of that idea on this project if you can be a little more
height to make something an enhancement, that’s great. I caution you that it has to be an enhancement;
it has to be something that improves the design. Right now I may not be so convinced that some of
these towers aren’t just computer images cut and pasted into place. I think you should take Alex’s
comments to heart and integrate that taller element within the function and design of the building and I
will be able to make the finding that it meets the design enhancement exception. Lastly, the question
about open space hasn’t been addressed much yet, but I think our Board has felt fairly strongly that units
need to have open balconies, private open space. I caution you that eliminating too much of that, I
think, is not a good idea and not something I can support. I can appreciate that you don’t want to have
balconies facing the freeway and to that extent, I suppose it would okay for those units to contribute to
slightly larger common open space, but for any unit without a strong reason not to have a balcony I don’t
think I can support not having private open space on the units. That’s a big answer but it is a big
proposition that’s put in front of us at the moment on that. Those are my comments. Overall, I am
excited about this and I really hope you bring it back to us with a final application. Thanks.
Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Baltay. Vice Chair Lee.
Vice Chair Lee: I appreciate this opportunity to discuss your project and recall previous projects you’ve
come forward with in the past; thank you. Elks Club I am thinking of and others with this team. This is
an opportunity for Palo Alto. I just have to say without making general comments, 48 units with seven
affordable, hooray! I just wanted to take a few steps back, I had asked the question regarding
sustainability and I know that this is a preliminary and I would just love to see how this project and every
project that comes forward developed in Palo Alto, begins to think about the future in a way that a
blueprint or maybe even going beyond the requirements and maybe there is some thinking in terms of
our troubling climate change and how we build. I will just put that out there. The thought regarding the
site, Greer Park is so wonderful. I was just there with my daughter this weekend. I think what is going
to be really helpful in your project is just to have some site sections -- I am sure you do have them --and
profiles of these proposals for the sound wall and just really thinking about that site from a larger scale in
a drawing that is communicated. With that bike lane, I look forward to seeing how the city works with
you and you work with the city in terms of not degrading and just the important pieces of infrastructure
and what is there and coming to some compromise. Now, from the sidewalk curb on West Bayshore --
we did talk about it a little bit, and I know your landscape is going to be coming forth with the city -- the
tree canopy and shade and since there are three-story building and you're right along the freeway, but
there are existing trees there. I just want to put out there that mature tree canopies really help comfort,
and shade the users and you said you might relocate trees; all good but I would love to see a landscape
proposal that has the mature shrubs that might buffer. It is very encouraging that you see along the
park edge that you have along the park some buffer there with the shrubs. As you propose and
communicate this design, it would be wonderful to make sure about that landscape plan on all sides.
When we talk about common open space and private open space, I’ll just say the diagram and site plan
to me makes a lot of sense. I think we have all laid out these proposals with townhomes and multi-
4.a
Packet Pg. 186
City of Palo Alto Page 16
family housing and it is tough, it really is. If we take a look at how the open space, I did want to point
out that that common open space that sits along the western edge along the park, that long park side,
that common open space… often a common open space wants to be the heart of a project that all things
lead to that common open space. I understand the push and pull regarding private open space in terms
of balcony use and we would love to have private open space and sometimes these projects the
balconies actually just become storage or they are so small they are not so enjoyable for the users. I just
want to keep an open mind about this request in terms of common open space that might become this
really compelling part of the project with terrific access to all. I think that is something to remember that
it is common open space and that all of the users might have terrific access because you won’t have that
private open space. That’s my thought there. In terms of access to the park, that seems important if it
is possible. Given a project of this size, I hesitate in terms of multiple access points. I think one might
be sufficient. Again, how does that walk and how does that access actually become something that
everybody knows in the community and is designed in a way that is compelling and comfortable, and
maybe your landscape just works and sharpens the pencil there. I actually spend a lot of time in these
kinds of developments over the years with my kids and my family, and I am thinking about a lot of these
projects in other peninsula areas and San Mateo comes to mind in terms of these kinds of projects. My
comments will overlap with my colleagues here in terms of the architecture and how we experience
them. A large part of these projects are experienced not from the outward edge, not the West Bayshore
edge, but actually along the private streets of B, D, and C, and every inch counts. You want everything
to work. In terms of the post, it’s not an afterthought; you actually think about how people are walking
and getting their mail and their trash and recycling, and often there isn’t a lot of space for landscape on
these private streets. Because you’re focusing much on the street façade along Bayshore and these
others… in your site plan you actually have a lot of front, rear, and side that is vehicular and essentially
the front face for users. This isn't a large project by any means; there are three private streets but I am
just encouraging you to think about some kind of system of organizing and thinking about the character
of the architecture that might… I know in your proposal you just showed one sample elevation. By no
means, I am sure you're not proposing that that one elevation that we see would be dropped
everywhere. I mean this is a preliminary. I wanted just to propose -- maybe this is not the right way to
go -- thinking about different easy to vary the architecture or even the color palette. Maybe there are
some groupings thought about in terms of a front face along West Bayshore or the edges along that
south-facing Greer Park. Some townhome projects have an outer edge and then when you come inside
there is some kind of transition to it; a variation of the character in terms of those interior buildings. I
just throw it out there and I also thought you had the opportunity, if you keep this site plan, for Avenue
B, the long one, is maybe different and you have the groupings along D and groupings along C. I just
really hope that you might consider those the backs… what you would call the long facades of the units
of buildings five, six, and seven along that common open space as the compelling heart of common open
space. I am just thinking out loud and trying to think of how you might propose and progress in your
design in terms of character that has variation and delight. Perhaps when you go to those towers, which
I do not see any problem with the height going up there… again, you have seven buildings and those
towers, as they repeat, they might become very solid and heavy in terms of the elevation. How can we
lighten those or create a depth in its character or vary them? I think my colleague Board Member Lew
mentioned the clear story or if it’s a false tower, maybe just think about how it might not be blank and
top-heavy. That was my thought when I was thinking about the towers. I think those are the bulk of my
comments. I think in general, the focus on the edges, as well as understanding the building are not a
front and back, and then just big on the landscape to come through. Sometimes at the end of these
private streets, it is wonderful to see some seasonal color or some treatment of something that might
break the monotony of plants. In the common open space I am curious to see how that results in terms
of paving and actual program uses or flexible uses. Thank you.
Chair Thompson: Thank you, Vice Chair Lee. Thanks, everyone on the board. I think we have heard
some really great things so far. I’ll just summarize and be brief. I appreciate the applicant’s presentation
and the city’s presentation. We’ve heard a few comments about the site’s planning and the site design
so I will start there. I think Vice Chair Lee’s note about the front of the building… I similarly wrote the
front of the building may flip on you. You have a nice setup on one side of the building that is intended
to be pedestrian and then the other side that is vehicular but the way that it is setup right now it seems
like a lot of activity might happen on the vehicular side. I don’t see, at least in this site plan, any
4.a
Packet Pg. 187
City of Palo Alto Page 17
pedestrian entrances on the vehicular side. I think similarly, I would caution that it may be worth noting
that if you decide to stick with this layout, the front may flip on you and what you're noting as your rear
elevation may end up being your front elevations because of the pedestrian activity that may end up
happening. Similarly, I think it is worth noting that initially I thought that the pedestrian walkway
connected across the whole thing but I see that it is broken up and I think it would be worthwhile to
consider what that experience is. If we do like to keep the vehicular separate from the pedestrian, I feel
like the pedestrian circulation needs to work more cohesively instead of being broken up by the vehicular
parts. That is something to consider. I know this site has constraints and you want to try to maximize as
much as possible but it’s just something to note, similarly with the common open space being the heart
as Vice Chair Lee was saying. The way that this is setup right now, those buildings on the north side
don’t really have a relationship to that heart and is there something that could be done to create that.
Maybe that is a treatment of the pavement, maybe the pavement is porous and there is more greenery
that connects those things. There are things that could be done that could accomplish that. When it
comes to the peaks and the DEE, I would agree with Vice Chair Lee and Board Member Lew and Board
Member Baltay -- I feel like a lot of the Board has said this -- it would be great if they could enhance the
living space inside in some way. I do think there is something to be said about having some variation
across the whole site that the peaks on the north side will have… if you decide to put windows they are
going to capture light differently than the peaks on the south side. I think that is also partially why I was
asking about the concept of the building and the concept of the design. What are you trying to achieve
with this design? Right now the peaks don’t seem like they are achieving too much for the interior. I
think the note that it does vary the roofline is taken, but I think more can be done on that note. I think it
would be worth considering an alternative variation that does something for the unit. Similarly, with the
façade four materials, initially when I looked at the façade it felt a little bit chaotic. It is a lot of layers
and a lot of… with four materials I think there are more chaotic ones out there. I think we have seen
ones that have six or seven which is way too much. Back to what you're trying to achieve, I am glad I
asked that because I can understand why if you are going for an articulated façade with visual interest I
think you are definitely getting there. I think the relationship that you're trying to create with the
landscape is also important. I understand that the muted tones are because you really want to respect
the landscape and you want to appreciate the variation landscape, but I think there is something to be
said about competing with that. I would encourage another look at the façade that might create
something a bit simpler that really… I appreciate Board Member Baltay’s comment about considering
having some variation across the site that really responds to the concept and landscape because if you
have so much foliage, the conditions on the north will be really different from those on the south.
Similarly, with how your façade wants to blend in with that landscape will change as well. Those are my
notes on the facade. I could be in support of a DEE if it were to enhance the interior of the building as
well. For the private open space, I think there is great value in having private open space, especially for
those building on the north side that don’t seem to have a very storing connection to the heart of the
site. I would feel really bad for them if they lost their private open space and then didn’t have a good
connection to the common open space. I think it would be worth evaluating that on a case-by-case basis
if you decide to stick with this layout. I think that’s it for my comments. Any other last thoughts?
Board Member Lew: Osma, I have a comment.
Chair Thompson: Sure.
Board Member Lew: A couple of Board Members mentioned the guest parking and I just want to note
that the city used to require a certain percentage of visitor spaces but we changed our code to meet the
State’s mandates, which were to take it out to make housing production more affordable. Our parking
ordinance conforms with the State, so we can’t require it. I think Board Member Baltay’s is trying to get
some flexibility and maybe that is possible but I think as we have it we can’t require it as David alluding
to.
Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Any other further comments? All right. I will let the applicant have
a quick chance to ask us any clarification questions.
4.a
Packet Pg. 188
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Mr. Hickey: I guess, I am not sure whether Elaine will have anything additional to add but I just want to
say thank you. We really appreciate your comments; some good insight there and that will help us as we
think through the project. Elaine, is there anything you'd like to add?
Ms. Breeze: No, thank you for your comments. Very much appreciated.
Chair Thompson: Thank you so much.
Board Member Baltay: Osma, can I ask one thing? This is maybe more to my colleagues than anything
else but we have coming up next and we have been working hard on these objective design standards.
Has anyone considered how they would apply to this project?
Mr. Hickey: Elaine, would you like to answer that? Yes, she has.
Board Member Baltay: Osma, would that be okay for her to speak to that question?
Chair Thompson: Absolutely, yeah.
Ms. Breeze: Is that okay. I will stay on to watch your next meeting. I apologize; I appreciated Peter’s
time a few weeks ago to talk to us about the objective design standards. I took a crack at really looking
at this project in relation to that. I think, at least this round, seeing how… for way of background, I do a
lot of work with our multi-family group SummerHill Apartment Communities and a lot of them are
vernacular around objective design standards as they relate to more apartment larger-scale buildings. I
got a little bit hung up as I was reviewing it. There’s a lot of focus, rightfully so, on primary building
entrances. Once I got away from realizing, or at least my assumption is, that if you don’t have a primary
building entrance, all of those things that trickle around it do not apply. You do have a whole section on
individual unit entrances. We would focus on how those are incorporated. I think some of the other
comments that we had provided Peter previously addressed. Our plan evolved as our conversation with
Peter evolved. Our buildings have become smaller. In this case, we only have six-unit buildings. In the
event this project had an 8 or 10 unit buildings, we would’ve had a really hard time complying with some
of the conditions. I think the other thing that jumped out is we are not adjacent to any existing
residential and I think that would have been a little more challenging. Those were some of the high-level
things. There is a note specific to this site; you have a relationship to existing sidewalk grade, which is a
five-foot maximum. It is kind of tiered in how it works. In this case, we might not be able to meet that
because of the FEMA floodplain. Just to be aware of that; we might be within six inches of that and
maybe a foot, but that was one very site-specific item. I guess the only thing that did strike me because
I didn’t realize you had the March meeting previously, is that the idea that if a townhome project… if the
design standards are really not set up to address townhome projects, the fallback is that we just don’t
use the objective design standards and we have to go the discretionary route. I would say on a global
level, I only looked at this relative to our project, other townhome projects might not meet the design
guidelines and it struck me as not acceptable that if you were to propose a row townhome project that
didn’t meet the standards, like sorry we really didn’t design them for that kind of housing so you have to
go our old route. That’s the one global thing that I am just letting you know kind of struck me as
unusual because…
Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, if I may, I think this conversation… Elaine, you were saying you would be able to
stay on for the objective standards project. We would really appreciate that because I think it is a good
conversation o have and I think we can explain about the floor levels and how we have tried to make this
appropriate for all styles of projects. It would be good to have in the next item.
Ms. Breeze: Okay. Sorry, I kept going. You got me started. I apologize.
Chair Thompson: I think we will have a chance to do public comment in our next item.
Mr. Hickey: I just want to say thank you, again, for your feedback this morning. It was very helpful.
4.a
Packet Pg. 189
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Chair Thompson: Thank you.
Ms. Breeze: Thank you very much.
Chair Thompson: We will close this item and move on to the next one. Let’s take a five-minute break.
Ms. Gerhardt: That would be great.
Chair Thompson: All right. We will reconvene at 10:14/10:15.
[The Board took a short break.]
Action Items
3. Public Hearing: Public Hearing: Recommendation on Objective Design Standards (Continued from
March 18th, no staff report changes, Attachments B-E added)
Chair Thompson: Are we all back?
Board Member Baltay: Yup.
Chair Thompson: All right. Let’s go on to our next item which is the ARB recommendation on objective
standards. We are continuing from our March 18th conversation. Does staff want to present anything
before we go back into it?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you, Chair. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning. This is a
continuation of our prior discussion about objective standards. While we are not required to take public
testimony, it probably would be a good thing to do in this case given this is going to be a significant
change in the way that we do our processing of housing projects in particular. Jean will have the bulk of
the presentation. We did do the first half of chapter 18.24 and that is the objective standards chapter.
That’s the ARB’s main purview over that objective standards chapter. We are going to be doing the
second half of that today. There are some code changes in the rest of the municipal code and we would
like to hear the ARB’s opinion, especially on the height transition changes that we are proposing. They
are fairly minor in nature but we would love to hear what you have to say about that. You do have at At
Places Memo that we did last time. It should be in your packet this time for that height transition. With
that, I will let Jean take it away. Thank you.
[Setting up presentation.]
Jean Eisberg: Good morning Chair Thompson and members of the Board. We are back talking about
objective standards, as Jodie indicated, a continued item from March 18. We are going to jump in and
we are going to present the changes that we have made since that March 18th hearing in response to the
board’s comments. We also have those redlined in a version of the word document that Chris will bring
up. We are going to continue the discussion starting with the façade design section that we weren’t able
to finish last time. Then, as Jodie indicated, I am going to represent another update from Title 18. This
is about height transition related to the At Places Memo that staff provided on the 18th. Since our last
meeting, we have made four key changes. First, to clarify in the applicability that the objective standards
do not apply to single-family with ADU and JADU. The City does not calculate those units towards
densities. Those are not considering multi-family for our purposes. We are just clarifying the design
standards apply to multi-family meaning three or more units. Also clarified the section on accent paving.
This is the new text that is proposed for the chapter. I included a table to clarify where this applies. On
these street segments listed, we have clarified what that material needs to be. On University Avenue
between Alma and Webster, it is replacing the break at the corner or providing it and creating this brick
trim midblock at the edge of the sidewalk. On Cal Avenue, it says decorative glass replaced again on the
sidewalk. We had a discussion last time about townhomes, particularly what happens at the ends of
townhomes when they wrap around the corner, and we have clarified a number of items. First, this is a
4.a
Packet Pg. 190
City of Palo Alto Page 20
summary of what appears in the new redline document. The treatment of the end unit that there is a
height to width ratio greater than 1.2:1, a minimum fenestration of 15 percent for those end units, and at
least one façade modulation defined as a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of one foot.
This could be a bay window like you see here; it could be a wraparound porch. We’ve also revised the
document to allow for townhomes on the interior of the lot, similar to what you have on the project that
was reviewed earlier this morning. Previously it just stated that town homes need to face a public
sidewalk and we have clarified that it is really any walkway that allows for that interior townhome
condition. In terms of façade length, the Board’s straw poll made a change to façade length standards.
It increased from 150 feet length to 250 feet. There was also an interest in creating a different standard
with a smaller façade break for a smaller building with less length. We have added a second standard for
buildings between 150 feet and 250 feet in length with a more limited façade break. Whereas the longer
building requires a 400 square foot face break, the 150 to 250 foot in length building would only require
a façade break of 64 square feet and a width greater than or equal to two times the depth. Just a
reminder, this is an action item. We are looking for the Board to take action today and then the project
will move on to the PTC at the end of the month, and then to the Council later this spring and summer.
Staff’s recommendation is to ask the Board to recommend to the Council adoption of the objective
standards attachment A that would modify Title 18 of the Municipal Code. Next section of the
presentation, and we’re hoping to pick this up at the end of the meeting, this is a similar slide we showed
last time. In the development standard, in the commercial districts, there are a number of places where
the code talks about height transitions when a commercial district is adjacent to a lower-density
residential district. This has been a source of confusion for applicants, for staff, for decision-makers for a
long time. Each of the development standard’s tables has slightly varied definitions of how this is
presented. This is an example: in 18.16, which is the CC, CS, CN district, the development standards
table states that within 150 feet of a residential zone district (other than the RM40 or PC zone) abutting
or located within 50 feet of the side. It is hard to interpret what that means especially when it is isolated
here, but the idea is that generally you can say you have a 50-foot height limit when you're within 150
feet and you're abutted or located within 50 feet of the side, which we interpreted as the property line,
you have to reduce the height typically to 35 feet. What that looks like in the graph here, we have got
the graphic here. We’ve got a residential zoning district in yellow on this side, a commercial zoning
district here, and within 50 feet of the property line, the height has to drop to that lower limit, say 35 feet
versus 50 feet. That’s the way that staff has always interpreted this and that’s the way we showed a
couple project examples last time, including a hotel on El Camino and the Wilton Court project. The
proposal is to clarify this in the code just to state within 50 feet of a residential district that lower height
limit applies. Now, even though that is how staff has been interpreting it, there was some concern from
the PTC that we were actually proposing to change the interpretation and that is not our intention; l
although, there may be reasons to change that interpretation if we want to talk about whether 50 feet
from a lower density district or 100 feet from a lower density district is more relevant. It’s something
that we are actually looking on your input on today and may be considered down the line, but for now no
proposed changes to the CD districts downtown. This table is appearing very fuzzy, but this is the table
that is in the AT Places Memo and identifies the proposed changes for each of the zoning districts where
this applies. Just to put a finer point on it, this 150-foot threshold is used in various places throughout
the code. Looking at the right on the zoning map, this is a part of the legend of the zoning map, and
here’s a section of the zoning map here. This blue hatched area on the zoning map is showing
commercial district designations that are within 150 feet of these lower-density residential districts. This
has been used both for the height transition that I just explained, but also for performance standards.
Originally, Chapter 18.23, which regulates refuse and lighting and visual screening and noise, has only
applied to locations where you have commercial uses and commercial districts abutting lower-density
residential districts. In practice, this particular section of the code has been modified over time and has
been applied to all different types of sites and uses regardless of the designation within this hatched
area. That’s just to explain a little bit about more that 150-foot threshold again as used as a variety of
ways in the code. Again, we are hoping to come back to the height transition issue to get your feedback
on this proposed change and your general thinking about the idea of height transitions and the
appropriateness of within 50 feet versus 150 feet. I am going to pause there to end my presentation,
take any questions before we move on to discussions. Thank you.
Board Member Baltay: I have two things for you, Jean, if it’s okay, Osma.
4.a
Packet Pg. 191
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Chair Thompson: Yes, go ahead.
Board Member Baltay: If you could back up the slide regarding the indentations on larger buildings. I
recall having us mentioned a minimum depths and widths. I don’t see that in there. On my notes here,
we had buildings between 100 and 250 feet would have 64 square feet with a four-foot minimum depth
and an eight-foot minimum width, and we did not include an aspect ratio. Am I recollecting that
wrongly?
Chris Sensenig: You may be correct. I may have missed that note. The aspect ratio was in there
previously and I did not pick up on the elimination of the aspect ratio. That is fine…
Board Member Baltay: I don’t know that we focused on it too deeply. It may be worth having the Board
consider what our intention is. I was trying to give greater design flexibility and sometimes you want the
ability to have something either deeper or narrower.
Vice Chair Lee: I am in support of that. I believe we did touch upon it but maybe we just didn’t give
clear direction there.
Board Member Baltay: I think maybe it is worth going back to the record really carefully and see what
we actually approved rather than having us redo it right now. I remember we took a vote on it and stuff,
didn’t we?
Chair Thompson: Yeah, I remember that part of the discussion. Is this in the .060 chapter?
Board Member Baltay: .050, building massing is where I am seeing it.
Ms. Gerhardt: The votes we took were straw polls and you should have excerpt minutes in your packet.
Vice Chair Lee: I think it is in .050 under building massing. That last…
Board Member Baltay: Rather than taking our time to do it now perhaps we can direct staff to verify that
that is what we agreed to. Osma, that’s my comment on that.
Chair Thompson: Okay.
Mr. Sensenig: Thank you, I see it now.
Board Member Baltay: The second comment was just that I want to understand the At Places Memo that
Jodie and staff are putting forth, what you're saying is that in a CC district you have to go down to 35
feet when you're within 50 feet of residential where it is 150 feet in other districts? Is that the guts of it?
Ms. Gerhardt: In the downtown area, the code does require 150 feet of measurement to go down. In
the commercial zones is where it is unclear and where we have been implementing it as 50 feet.
Board Member Baltay: I see. That’s a CC zone? Is that what your presentation said?
Ms. Gerhardt: It is all of the commercial zones which include CC.
Board Member Baltay: Okay. I suspect the City Council is going to want to weigh in heavily on that but I
just want to understand what you're saying here. It’s either 50 feet or 150, depending on whether it is a
downtown zone or a regular commercial zone. Is that right?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. We are trying to make very minimum changes to this particular project. We are
trying to just make the language clear.
4.a
Packet Pg. 192
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Board Member Baltay: I agree completely. I think Council thinks 150 feet is what's clear. That’s my gut
feeling from them but let’s not take our time right now. I just wanted to understand what you're saying
here.
Ms. Gerhardt: If that’s the case, we would appreciate the ARB’s conversation about that because staff
has been mainly interpreting this as 50 feet.
Board Member Baltay: Okay. I just wanted to understand. I don’t want to get in the way of Jean’s
presentation.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Are there any more questions?
Vice Chair Lee: I just had a couple, and maybe this is obvious but, jean and Jodie, are these diagrams to
the right with the dimensions A, B, C, are those new and that is to be included with the language revisal?
Ms. Eisberg: This diagram is not proposed for the new 18.24 section. Chris and his team prepared it to
help us explain this.
Vice Chair Lee: Okay. My other question was the previous slide there were some photos and I am
wondering are we proposing to include photos of built examples in Palo Alto in our objective design
standards or is that again just for us today?
Vice Chair Lee: The photos were presented for the presentation today. I think what’s going to happen is
that the 18.24 section of the code is going to be integrated into the existing ordinance and it'll look just
like your existing ordinance. Then the version that you have been looking at that is formatted and has
larger graphics and potentially some photographs will be a checklist that will be available on the website.
It may be updated from time to time but it is going to say, hey make sure you always go look at the code
and applicants will fill that out and say we have met this XYZ standard. I think it will be easier for us to
add photographs into that version. I am actually not sure how to add photographs into the adopted
version of the code. That checklist could look a little bit different and we could have more example
photographs.
Vice Chair Lee: I just want to bring it up because it is something that I remember in the notes that
Planning Commission had some thoughts in terms of graphics or not and photos or not. I think I am a
lone wolf here but I do think photos of existing examples in Palo Alto along the peninsula is helpful to
applicants to illustrate this abstract language. I don’t know if we want to talk about this as a Board, but I
think that to have diagrams and photos as part of what an applicant, or the public, or the board, or the
Council reads is a positive.
Chair Thompson: Maybe we can take a straw poll.
Board Member Hirsch: I want to support that.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think I want to reiterate what Jean was saying is that the code might just be the written
language where as handouts and things that we give to the public could have more graphics in them.
That is something that we can certainly run by the ARB before we finalize such a handout.
Vice Chair Lee: It sounds like, Jodie -- I mean, Chair Osma it is up to you -- this is something we can
discuss later. In a previous comment, I had noted City of Mountain View and other cities when I use
these documents actually have photos and I find it to be helpful.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Is the question when we do the straw poll do we want to ask the questions of
photos and diagrams as separate items to include? I feel like we have been seeing the diagrams this
whole time and maybe there has been an embedded assumption that these are going to be in the
document but now I am hearing that they probably won’t be in the code, they will be in the handout.
4.a
Packet Pg. 193
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Ms. Eisberg: They will be in the code. The zoning graphics will be in the code.
Chair Thompson: Okay.
Ms. Eisberg: We have not proposed photographs in the code at this point in time. I am not sure it’s
feasible, although I support if there is a graphic there could be a photo. I’ve just never seen it.
Chair Thompson: I see. Okay. Really, the query is if we add photographs in the handout version. I am
willing to do a straw poll on that. Let’s see if there are any other questions and then maybe we can get
into the discussion part. I will make a note here. Any more questions of staff before we wend the staff
presentation? I don’t see any. Jodie, is this where we do public comments?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, we can certainly do public comments now. I think right now we are just sort of on
the first half of 18.24, which is what we discussed in depth last time. Maybe now is actually not the time
for public comment. Let’s move forward to our second half, which is the end of 18.24 because we
already got public comments on the first half. We can get public comments on the second half.
Chair Thompson: I see. Once we go through all of the sections… is the second half… sorry. I am
confused.
Ms. Gerhardt: I am sorry. The public comments comes first before the discussion but we are mainly
discussing the second half. I guess that’s my caveat.
Chair Thompson: Yeah. My note is that we should revisit starting at .60, right?
Ms. Gerhardt: Correct.
Chair Thompson: Before we start that, I did get a request from Board Member Hirsch to speak generally
about the project. I know that once we go through all the chapters we will have a chance to speak
generally again about the objective standards but I wanted grant Board Member Hirsch a chance to
speak generally now and if there are any other Board Members that would also like to have general
comment snow.
Board Member Hirsch: Thank you, Osma. We discussed this this morning and I noted a few situations
which actually have been addressed in just recent comments about that section B maximum façade
length, and certainly more appropriately so. Just to get to that, Jean, I had asked you to show the
elevations of the Wilton Court. I don’t know if you have that handy. Thank you. It is very clear on this
building, which is about 160-something linear feet, that the recesses that are both on the left and the
right hand side are smaller than what would have been required if our 400-foot recess was a part of this
project. I am quite satisfied with the way this looks at this moment. This is going back in time again but
it seems to me that there has been a correction and maybe Jean or Chris, if you could speak to it, that
you have lessened the requirement for a building of this size so that this would actually be okay at this
point. Is that correct?
Ms. Eisberg: Do you happen to know what the facade length is?
Ms. Gerhardt: I’m looking.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Mr. Sensenig: You said 160 feet, I believe. If the building is within 150 to 200 feet in length which face
a public street right of way, or publicly accessible path, it shall have at least one vertical façade break
with a minimum area greater than 64 square feet and a minimum width of eight feet and minimum depth
of four feet.
4.a
Packet Pg. 194
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Then it certainly works. That satisfies me quite a bit about that particular
issue. I had some general comments and Osma and I discussed them earlier. I could hold them at this
point until the end of the session here.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Are you sure?
Board Member Hirsch: I'm sure, but the other aspect of it was there were a few things which we
discussed previously and I wonder when and if there as an opportunity to go back. It is a short list but
nonetheless it might be useful.
Chair Thompson: Okay. I think hopefully from now on moving forward, I want to do the public
comments really quick because I do want to hear from the public. Then, I would like to go through the
remaining chapters starting from .60 all the way to .100, and then at that point, we will have given the
whole set a fine-tooth comb with our comments. At that point, if there are things that we want to revisit
from previous chapters we can have a chance to discuss that as a Board. Let’s hear from public
comments.
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Thompson, there are currently no public attendees in this meeting right now.
Chair Thompson: Okay.
Board Member Baltay: Osma, I see Elaine Breeze on the video chat here. I think we really should hear
from her if you can get her to work in somehow.
Ms. Gerhardt: There she is.
Board Member Baltay: Elaine, you need to formally speak up as a member of the public. Vinh, does she
need to do something to get that recognition
Ms. Breeze: Yes, my name is Elaine Breeze. I am with SummerHill Housing Group.
Chair Thompson: Osma, are you recognize her as a speaker from the public?
Chair Thompson: Yeah. Could you state and spell your name, and then you'll have three minutes.
Ms. Breeze: [Spells name.] Thank you. It looks like this was one item that was reviewed at your last
meeting. I would ask that the Board consider figure two section regarding finished floor range for
ground-floor residential units being a maximum of five feet at certain distances. I would ask that the
Board consider exception in sites that are located in a floodplain with careful consideration that if it
exceeds five feet that there be architectural landscape and pedestrian treatments to still create and
attractive pedestrian realm, but in the event that difference is up to maybe six feet provided that there is
proper setback. I would ask that the Board consider that. I think with sea-level rise, there is a much
bigger area in the city that is impacted by the floodplain now with the new map. That would be my one
comment. Then, I think the second one is just clarification that in the vent it is a townhome project that
there is not considered a primary building entry and the objective standards would only apply to unit
entries on an individual basis. Thank you.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak?
Mr. Nguyen: We do have someone who just joined. He or she did not raise their hand. It looks like it’s
a phone caller. The phone caller of the last four digits 0403, if you want to speak, you have to press *9
to raise your hand. Let’s give them a couple seconds to see if they want to speak. Seeing how there are
no raised hands, that concludes public comments for this item.
4.a
Packet Pg. 195
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Chair Thompson: All right. Thank you. I’d like to quickly address these comments on primary entry.
Can I ask Chris if he knows what section that’s at so we can look at that really quick as a Board?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think there may be several sections that have primary entry. I think possibly Elaine’s
main point is that there is not a primary entry on a townhouse project, there are several entries. We just
need to make clear that those sorts of things are not required on a townhouse project.
Chair Thompson: Okay. I think I found the location in question. This is in section…
Mr. Sensenig: 040(B)(3)(iii).
Chair Thompson: That’s correct.
Vice Chair Lee: It is packet page 51 from today’s packet. Is that where we are looking?
Chair Thompson: I'm actually looking at last week’s packet with all of my noted. I can confirm.
Ms. Gerhardt: Do we need to add a definition of primary entry?
Mr. Sensenig: I think there is two ways to do it. One is to just… the primary building entry not including
unit entries, shall meet on of the following standards.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s think about the right verbiage.
Mr. Sensenig: Or it could be considered that the entry to a townhome is a primary entry because that is
a building. The individual unit is.
Board Member Hirsch: Chris, could you use private entry versus public?
Chair Thompson: Or common entry?
Ms. Eisberg: I suggest we take a look at the definitions which is on page two of the document, or packet
page 39. The way it is defined is that it is an entrance to a lobby suggesting that it is a multi-family
building.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Then we don’t need to make any edits to that. Then, I wanted to look at the
unit entries really quick when we discuss that ground-floor unit entries. That’s later on. That’s .070.
Mr. Sensenig: No, it is just following primary entries. I think we could add an exception to the finished
floor here for…
Ms. Eisberg: Isn't this a minimum? The four feet is a minimum. It could be higher.
Mr. Sensenig: There’s a maximum of five feet.
Ms. Eisberg: Okay.
Ms. Gerhardt: We have in other parts of our code in flood zones we do allow them to go up. I’d have to
find the language. Let me find that.
Mr. Sensenig: State and counties are now thinking about changing building codes to provide a minimum
level. It could be something that is more generally in the code that if FEMA requires a finished floor level
that is the maximum.
Ms. Gerhardt: In other parts of our code we talk about a maximum height could be increased by one-
half. The increase in elevation required to reach the base flood elevation.
4.a
Packet Pg. 196
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Chair Thompson: That’s already in the code?
Ms. Gerhardt: For different reasons but we could use that same logic.
Chair Thompson: Maybe we can reference that section here.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think we would want to pick up the actual wording but the beauty of it is that it would
be the same concept and so easy to implement in that way. This is coming out of the R1 flood zone for
heights. It’s a footnote to the development standards.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Shall we do a quick straw poll across the board if we are support of adding this
language?
Board Member Baltay: I definitely think we should add something to address the flood zone issue
question. As the public speaker pointed out, it just makes it much harder when you're in a floodplain. I
think half of the difference may be too much. She was talking about just a foot and what Jodie is talking
about is the building heights on R1 which is a different kind of issue altogether. This is just where the
front door is located, right?
Chair Thompson: Correct.
Board Member Baltay: I would be in favor of just giving some discretion, well it can’t have discretion but
an extra certain amount, say one or two feet additional if the property is within a floodplain.
Chair Thompson: I see Chris has a raised hand. Would you like to respond to that really quick?
Mr. Sensenig: Yes, please. It is my understanding with new laws and potentially the California Building
Code changes that there will be in flood zones just a minimum height of finished floor and you can’t
provide a residential finished floor below that height. For instance, along the bay edge, it might be 13
feet above sea level and if the street is down at five feet, you cannot build a building that is below that
13 feet above sea level.
Board Member Baltay: That’s exactly what they're facing right here that Palo Alto requires the floodplain
plus one foot and that puts them at five-and-a-half feet above the street level on the project we just
reviewed previously.
Mr. Sensenig: Okay.
Board Member Baltay: That will put them in conflict with this five-foot limitation here.
Mr. Sensenig: I think I misunderstood what you said when you meant plus one foot but now I
understand.
Board Member Baltay: We haven’t really thought it through but what we might say is the five-foot or the
minimum FEMA floodplain might raise as depending.
Chair Thompson: I think that language makes a lot of sense. Can I hear from the other Board Member if
they are in support of adding this? Vice Chair Lee.
Vice Chair Lee: I am in support of language that refers to… just as you proposed is fine. I just want to
point to the intent of the statement. The reason why we are doing this is a way to spate the private and
public realm, right. Isn't that our intention? I propose not a prescriptive dimension but something that
might go back to intent. Let’s just not forget why this is proposed.
Chair Thompson: Sure. Thanks. Board Member Lew.
4.a
Packet Pg. 197
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Board Member Lew: Sure, I will support this.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I would support that.
Chair Thompson: Okay, great. I think those were the notes that I took. Let’s move on to .060 where
we left off, which’s actually this chapter if I am not mistaken. No, that was .040.
Mr. Sensenig: We went through base, middle, and top and we have changed some of the graphics.
Chair Thompson: Yeah, this is good to see.
Mr. Sensenig: They might not be in your packet as they were just changed; some this morning.
Board Member Baltay: Perhaps you could show us what is in the current proposal.
Mr. Sensenig: We just cut the graphic as suggested. We added some windows to the bay here to make
it obvious that it’s a bay.
Board Member Baltay: I’m trying to correlate this with what I am looking at in these handouts.
Mr. Sensenig: Sorry; I have not seen your handout so I am…
Board Member Baltay: I have not seen your presentation so we have to figure…
Ms. Eisberg: For better or worse, we did not provide a new report or version of the standards so as not
to add confusion when we are continuing an item but then...
(Crosstalk)
Ms. Eisberg: The packet is the same as what you saw on March 18th, and what is on the screen is new.
The text changes are showing as redlines and the graphics may not be showing as changes. Chris will
orient us where graphics have changed.
Board Member Baltay: Just walk us through, Chris, the changed graphics and text, please.
Mr. Sensenig: I might need to go to full.
Chair Thompson: In our packet page we see two sides of the building. It’s axonometric of a building
showing the corner and we had given some feedback that an elevations or a zoom-in of that axon that
just shows a strip of the façade would better conceptually illustrate what we are trying to say here. It
seems like that is what this diagram is showing is just a little strip of the façade, not the whole building.
Mr. Sensenig: Correct.
Board Member Baltay: Why don’t you put that strip of façade on the screen so we can see what it looks
like?
Chair Thompson: It is on the screen.
Chair Thompson: I believe it is. This is the strip of the façade with three colors.
Board Member Baltay: This is it right here? This is the elevation façade now?
4.a
Packet Pg. 198
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Mr. Sensenig: I can maybe zoom out a bit, but we cropped all the drawings and repositioned the
legends.
Chair Thompson: Are there any thoughts on these diagrams as Chris is scrolling through them?
Board Member Baltay: I am still trying to figure out, Osma, which one is which and it is a moving target
here, quite literally.
Mr. Sensenig: Sorry.
Board Member Hirsch: I have some comments.
Chair Thompson: Go ahead, Board Member Hirsch.
Board Member Hirsch: The prototype you're showing here is a base, middle, and top and it exclusively
includes each of the floors; the base being the first floor, the middle being two floors, and then the top
being an entire floor. If you look at the wording actually, one of the possibilities is that the middle goes
all the way goes all the way to the top and the cornice is the only remaining element here. The question
will be is this be something that an applicant will look and say, “oh, I’ve got to change the middle to do
one thing and the base to do another? And then the top has to be a whole floor doing the third thing?”
This is a general comment.
Mr. Sensenig: I think that’s fair. I think we could potentially add an example where that happens.
Chair Thompson: I am going to annotate really quickly over here, if you'll scroll down a little bit. Yeah,
that one is fine. I think what David is suggesting is that -- David, correct me if I'm wrong -- say we have
the façade style that you have on the middle and then in a different color maybe your top is something
else. It’s different.
Board Member Hirsch: Is there a reason why it has to be different?
Chair Thompson: I think we are talking about variation in those three planes, but I understand that
you're suggesting that instead of the top being the whole floor it is just this top part up here. Is that
right?
Board Member Hirsch: Uh-huh.
Mr. Sensenig: I think that is fair. We could show a strong cornice line or a roof modulation.
Board Member Hirsch: And keep the three floors exactly the same.
Chair Thompson: What are the other Board Members’ thoughts on this suggestion?
Board Member Baltay: I think I'm alone on this and I know we have been beating these guys up about
their graphics but I think this is a change for the worse communicating with graphics. I think just taking
a three-dimension axonometric drawing and only showing us one side of it is not that same as showing a
building elevation. The reason I have been so confused is I am just trying to understand how these
relate. Now that I have the pictures in front of me I just don’t think it is working. I think these drawings
maybe understandable but not clear. If you scroll down a little bit to the one with just the cornice lines,
this one with the lines on it like that I don’t see that as a façade of a building being looked at obliquely.
That’s just the slanted lines now. I think I am alone on this but I am not so sure this is doing it. I think
what you really want is building elevations and I think you can dial into more of what we’re talking about
with how you change the window patterns or the cornice lines or demonstrate all of that. Don’t know
why you guys are trying so hard to stick to these boxy-axonometric drawings. Base, middle, and top is
not a three-dimensional thing that way.
4.a
Packet Pg. 199
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Mr. Sensenig: We are happy to change to elevations. In the short time from our last meeting, we did
not have time to produce elevations.
Board Member Baltay: I understand.
Mr. Sensenig: We wanted to show a version of the cropped oblique and then hear feedback.
Board Member Baltay: I appreciate all of the work you are doing. I understand how it is really
challenging and it is a tough concept. That’s my feedback.
Board Member Hirsch: Chris, my comment on Peter’s comment is I agree that elevations are probably
going to be a better way, and if you really were to try to show a client what you're doing you would do a
traditional/classical designing. You would do both. You would show a section with the elements that
project and you would show an elevation and the two of them would suffice to describe what's going
one. Even more detail, they would be perhaps a shadowed elevation so that the elements that are
protruding really stick out.
Chair Thompson: Doesn’t this go to Grace’s question about having photographs? Grace, is that what
you were driving towards?
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah. To circle back, I agree with what Peter and David just said. I think there has
been very little change and the datum is highly not effective in the way that it is showing since the datum
is lines are long lines. I don’t know what the best answer is. Chris, thank you so much for your work on
this. My feeling is an enlarged elevation with, just as David said, very strict shadows that are 45 degrees
that are cast along the surface might be a better way to illustrate. The other option would be if there are
examples or photos of built examples that might work with the diagrams all the better. I know we’re on
a strict timeline but I think it is important to have the graphics that relate to each point here.
Board Member Hirsch: I would just like to add to this that you're text actually says it. The text which we
discussed in the past, that the cornice is really… in some cases, the cornice is really the definition of the
top and the three floors again. If you had an elevation in which the three floors above the first floor
were all the same and shadowed and then a cornice was expressed above it as an option it then
describes an alternative that is a possibility here. It’s not strictly speaking base, middle, and top with a
whole floor, rather it is an element. Jean, you showed us the Berkley project in the past which had a
whole façade pulled forward and all of these elements were recesses within that piece. There are a
variety of alternatives here that are possible and I think if you diagram them and if you can get them to
the point where they could be diagramed so that they are representing a plane that is further out that is
penetrated and that plane is ended at a certain height or it goes all the way to the top and there is a
piece above it. The question is really is it required for us to show a parapet or a top floor that is
separately defined as a piece of the façade design? Is that really a requirement here? I have to say that
just stepping back a little bit just for a second to bring this issue up. As we discuss base, middle, and top
and we use in the text piece here and call it human-scaled architecture base, middle, and top I am very
bothered by it because I think those pieces belong in the intent and they are in the intent, human-scale
detail and they don’t belong in the specific elements of the façade that you're describing with diagrams
because they become too restrictive at that point.
Vice Chair Lee: Chair Osma, I do agree with Board Member David; however, I do want to acknowledge
that we have had this discussion before and I just want to make sure we move forward. I absolutely
agree with Board Member Hirsch in terms of what you just proposed but I believe there was a discussion
and then we were outnumbered.
Chair Thompson: Yeah, there was a straw poll.
(Crosstalk)
Board Member Baltay: (Inaudible).
4.a
Packet Pg. 200
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Board Member Hirsch: I mean, I'm raising the issue again, I know. I'm sorry but it something that I feel
so strongly about. I thought maybe, Peter, we could get somebody on board.
Chair Thompson: I do see a note here that you did propose to change the title but we voted not to do
that. Thank you for pointing that out, Vice Chair Lee.
Board Member Baltay: We owe staff a complete response today, guys.
Chair Thompson: We do. We need to keep moving forward. Were there any other comments on the
graphics? I wanted to hear from Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I don’t support the crop. I prefer the asymmetric drawings in the packet. I am not
sure I support going to elevations because I think you’re trying to show it three-dimensionally and I think
it is better. I think architects can read elevations but I am not sure other people can read them as well.
I am not sure it is as clear. I am okay with the packet drawings.
Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. I think I will give my two cents here and then it sounds like we
might need to do a straw poll. I think the problem with the crop is that we lose the context and
especially for the ones with the three datum lines there is no context. I think therein lies the confusion if
that is really a façade or not. I think the proposal of having an elevations and a section do make an axon
describe sit in the same way. I would be open to keeping the axons as they are. The crop is not
successful in many ways. If there was a way of showing the diagram and then pulling it out or
something maybe that context could come in but I think in general there seems to be a split between if
we should do elevations. I think the proposal should be an elevation and section because I don’t think an
elevation alone would work of the façade versus keeping the axon diagrams as is. Really quick, to staff,
is that a viable elevation and section versus axon? Does that seem to be a reasonable thing to do a
straw poll on? Okay, let’s do that. Are there any questions from the board before we do the straw poll?
Vice Chair Lee: Chair Osma, I just want to be clear, are we looking at number three to do the elevation
and the section or the ISO or are you proposing for all of them? I just wasn’t clear.
Chair Thompson: I guess up until the ones we have seen so far that fall under item C human-scaled
architecture that go the length of… there is four bullets; the menu of four items. I think that is what we
should vote on right now. I know that there are more graphics below that but I think we should follow
up with those later. In the straw poll please state if you prefer the axon or the section elevation. Board
Member Baltay.
Board Member Baltay: I don’t have an opinion right now. I am sorry. It is hard to judge those two. I
want to see what everybody else thinks. I yield to the wisdom of the Board collectively.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I am voting for the axons.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Hirsch.
Board Member Hirsch: It’s hard to be specific and just give you a yes or no because I am still puzzled by
the possibility of it having a corner but not being a defined shape entirely, which is yet another possibility
so that the line could continue forever but not be cut off as a method of dealing with an axon. Yes, this
one was very successful and, Osma, I think we had a lot to do with that so I am happy about it. I am
still am puzzled because an elevation -- I agree with Alex -- is hard to read it even it is well shadowed. I
think we should see it so that we make a judgment without not seeing it. In other words, if we see the
option… I think we need to be given options and to look at them and see what is possible here.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Vice Chair Lee.
4.a
Packet Pg. 201
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Vice Chair Lee: I agree with Board Member Hirsch. It is suddenly not ISO or the other you proposed. I
think we need to just see an alternative option. I do believe in photos with a diagram.
Board Member Baltay: Osma, if I could throw an idea out to you.
Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Board Member Baltay: The Board established a subcommittee, an ad hoc committee on this issue and I
wonder if you couldn’t have the Board collectively just steer the issue of the graphics back to our
subcommittee to work with these folks as we are putting this final thing together rot look at these
graphics. I think all of us understand what the issue is and it really is just a matter of rolling up our
sleeves and getting it right. I’d be in favor of having the subcommittee just take that on if the
subcommittee is willing to rather than have us do straw poll votes on each one of these because the
graphics throughout have been an issue for us and I think it is just a matter of communicating with the
people doing the drawing. Is that feasible or possible?
Chair Thompson: I’d be open to that if the rest of the Board felt comfortable. I wanted to give the
Board a chance to voice their opinion here so that we wouldn’t have to do that but we could.
Board Member Baltay: You and David are the subcommittee, right?
Chair Thompson: That’s correct. I think we understand the concern with the crop, that the full axon had
more context and I guess if the team thinks that it might make sense to do an elevation… I just want to
give staff some direction if we think it is worthwhile to explore that or if there is something in the axon
itself that was fine enough that we can stick with the current scheme.
Board Member Baltay: What strikes me as I have flipped through all of this is that there is a consistency
in the graphics with these axon metrics and that is also important. Introducing a new style of graphic
just for one thing in the middle because a Board collectively voted on it doesn’t make it good overall
communication. Yet, it is just so hard to do by committee.
Chair Thompson: I think maybe what I am hearing is that the majority of us feel like the crop, at least
when it comes to these more conceptual facades that don’t have more detail on them, are a little hard to
follow. At least for those, I would recommend that staff explore something else. I think I heard a lot of
our other Board Members say similar things. We didn’t really finish the straw poll. We have three
maybes, one for the axon, and I think the axon is successful except for these particular conceptual ones
that could use an elevation section. Maybe we will revisit this later as part of a subcommittee item.
Board Member Baltay: Maybe we should finish our discussion of these topics but if you'd like a can make
a formal motion that we just empower an ad hoc committee to review and approve the final graphics
throughout the entire document. That is what I am really saying, in a nutshell.
Ms. Gerhardt: Do we want to take a straw poll on that and then that can be part of the motion at the
end?
Chair Thompson: Sure. Let’s do that. Board Member Hirsch?
Board Member Hirsch: I agree.
Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: No.
Board Member Baltay: Yes.
4.a
Packet Pg. 202
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Vice Chair Lee: Yes, and I am so sorry I am going to turn off my video as I get my power cord right
now.
Chair Thompson: Was that a yes?
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, that was a yes.
Chair Thompson: That was a yes.
Board Member Baltay: Alex, what’s your… I am sorry, Osma, go ahead.
Chair Thompson: Do you want to ask Alex why he says no?
Board Member Baltay: You have to vote first.
Chair Thompson: I am open to that. I am also a no.
Board Member Baltay: Why no? Why are you opposed to that, Alex and Osma?
Chair Thompson: I’ll let Alex go first.
Board Member Lew: Because it is going to Council, we have the axis, the axis work. They're not perfect.
We’ve had ample opportunities to change the drawings and you haven’t proposed anything to staff and I
think it is just time to move on.
Board Member Baltay: Do you think we should just stick to what we have, Alex?
Board Member Lew: Yes, I have said that several times.
Chair Thompson: I'm of a similar opinion. We’ve been looking at these graphics for almost a year now
and we have had a lot of weigh-in on them. I think they have evolved in many ways for the better. I
also have the opinion that we should move on.
Board Member Baltay: Okay. I am sorry, you two. I don’t think I am powering the subcommittee is not
letting us move on. It is just giving us one final check on the thing. I stand with what I proposed
before.
Chair Thompson: The straw poll stood that we may add it to the future motion.
Board Member Baltay: We can work it out again. I am just trying to move it along too and I thought
that is the best way to just get a quick eye to review the whole thing.
Chair Thompson: Understood.
Board Member Baltay: It’s a fair comment that these have been out there a long time and now is not the
time to be making big changes.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s keep going. Were there any other comments on .060? I’ll start with
Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: On the last section E, on parking, it says above grade structural parking levels
facing a public right of way shall be lined with commercial or capital uses. I think we need to clarify
public alley and to exclude public alleys from that section because we do have projects, like 725 Alma
and also Wilton Court, that are on public alleys and they have blank garage walls facing the alley. That’s
all I have on this.
4.a
Packet Pg. 203
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Chair Thompson: Just to clarify, basically this part would be okay to be white if this was an alley?
Board Member Lew: Right, or have some sort of landscaping or green screen or something but that we
don’t require commercial facing commercial uses or retail uses facing an alley.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Can I get some feedback from the rest of the Board on what they feel about
this proposal by Board Member Lew?
Board Member Hirsch: What page is that on?
Chair Thompson: The old packet is page 61 but I don’t know about the new packet.
Vice Chair Lee: The new packet is 66. Sixty-five to sixty-six. Can you just summarize again right now?
Am I looking at (E)(2)? Is that where we are? I assume we are talking about (E)(2), right?
Board Member Baltay: (E)(2).
Vice Chair Lee: Okay. The proposed language change is? Do we have that to talk about?
Board Member Lew: I think we should differentiate a street from an alley.
Chair Thompson: it could be that we make an exception for alleys. That’s the proposal, we make an
exception for alleys.
Board Member Hirsch: I'm still not finding it.
Vice Chair Lee: Is there any challenge on how we define alleys or a definition of an alley? I am just
pitting it out there?
Chair Thompson: Staff?
Ms. Gerhardt: This is packet page 65 of the latest packet that you have. That’s where this is expressed.
I can let Chris talk to the actual language.
Mr. Sensenig: I think it is fine to exclude alleys from this.
Board Member Baltay: What’s the best way to do that?
Mr. Sensenig: Above grade structured parking facing a public right of way or publicly accessible open
space path, with the exception of alleys, shall be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum
depth of 20 feet.
Board Member Baltay: Are there definitions of these spaces and alleys in other parts of this code? Of
public spaces and pedestrian accessible?
Ms. Gerhardt: I can find it for you but I believe that alley is defined elsewhere in the code where we
wouldn’t need to define it here.
(Crosstalk)
Vice Chair Lee: …not so much here but in other countries, a pedestrian alley, for example, versus a
vehicular alley. I assume if it is defined elsewhere it is probably fine.
Chair Thompson: I heard that Vice Chair Lee is in support, Board Member Lew proposed. Can I hear
from Board Member Hirsch?
4.a
Packet Pg. 204
City of Palo Alto Page 34
Board Member Hirsch: I would eliminate alleys from it. I don’t have an opinion on it.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Baltay.
Board Member Baltay: I am in favor of it.
Chair Thompson: Okay, and I think it is fine.
Board Member Hirsch: We are focused on this but we have leaped over many pages here.
Chair Thompson: We are going through each of the Board Member’s comments on section .060, and I
started with Board Member Lew.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Chair Thompson: Any comments on .060 are still fine, we will just go through all of the Board Members’
comments one by one.
Board Member Lew: Osma, that is the only comment I have on this section.
Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Board Member Baltay.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I am wondering about section (E)(3), just after what Alex was talking
about. Subgrade parking shall not have an exposed façade of more than five feet high. Is that allowed
to face any public right of way or public accessible open space? It probably is. If that’s the case I think
five feet is too much. It should be more like three feet, just a minimum necessary to get ventilation.
Mr. Sensenig: The purpose for the five feet is that is the maximum height of the finished floor with a
five-foot setback that is allowed. To line those up because typically that building type would allow for
subgrade parking.
Ms. Gerhardt: Also, when you have the five feet -- Chris, if you could show that diagram -- if they had a
five-foot floor height then it would be further setback. There would automatically be room for
landscaping. Is that correct based on the other note on this?
Mr. Sensenig: Continuous landscape with a minimum height of three feet is required.
Ms. Gerhardt: Go back to the section that talks about floor heights.
Mr. Sensenig: You can use the minimum setback. The idea is to get privacy in the unit; you're allowed a
higher finished floor the closer you are to the back of walk. Wirth a five-foot setback and then the
continuous shrubbery would need to be at least three feet high and that allows for a half subgrade
parking level.
Board Member Baltay: Let me withdraw my comment, Osma. I think this has been thought through
pretty carefully and it is obviously interrelated to a bunch of stuff. I think it is okay the way it is written.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other comments you have on .060?
Board Member Baltay: No, that sit.
Chair Thompson: Okay, thanks. Board Member Hirsch.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I dare not mention it again but I have a problem with the actual use of the
words when it gets to (C) and human-scaled architecture base, middle, and top, which I have already
described. I have a problem with the diagram under number (2)(A). We will be changing the diagram
4.a
Packet Pg. 205
City of Palo Alto Page 35
here in some way but this just doesn’t look like any kind of building that is likely to be, other than a bank
building. The scale of this thing seems wrong as a drawing. Why would there be stoops to entries to a
ground floor on a building like this? What happens when there are no entries to the bottom of the
building there? How is that treated? I don’t know how you want to address this but there is only one in
which the ground floor is shown with stoops and entries directly from the street.
Chair Thompson: Comments on diagrams. I think that is noted but I think we decided we would move
on from the diagrams. Do you have any other comments on .060?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I do. Under façade composition, item number six, the use of fine-grain
materials such as brick, wood, shingles not to exceed eight inches in length or height or width. There are
many materials which are of a larger scale, so eight inches is way too restrictive. There are even bricks
that are beautiful that are longer than eight inches, or twelve-inch bricks, or even sixteen-inch bricks that
are quite beautiful. I wouldn’t limit it to the size at all. I find it to be certainly much too restrictive that
way. Otherwise, the façade elements that are described are good. On compatible rhythm and pattern, I
do not believe in using recesses or divisions of a façade, specifically on a dimension level because, for
one, it makes a false look to the building. It looks to me as if it is a double building or two buildings all of
a sudden tied into one. I am opposed to requiring recesses anywhere in particular unless they come
from a larger planning concept, from the inside out. I am not opposed to bays or actually it isn't really
even specifically a bay, is it? No they vertical recesses or projection. That’s the proper term for it then.
I think those are appropriate elements but the recess on the basis of some abstract notion that there
should be a recess every 50 feet or however this is described assumes something that isn't necessarily an
important aspect to this building design.
Chair Thompson: Board Member Hirsch, what are you proposing to change?
Board Member Hirsch: I would propose we eliminate these recesses unless they can be tied into a
different form of description, such as modulation of the façade having ins and outs every 50-foot
dimension. Talk about them as modulations but they don’t need to follow a vertical pattern like this at
all. Again, we were looking at projects in Berkley where there is a projecting element and it varies per
floor and is organized rather differently than a vertical piece like this. We should have that opportunity to
be able to be flexible with the face of it, but a certain dimension modulation seems to me to make some
kind of sense and that it shouldn’t exceed 50 feet, let’s say before there is some form of modulation.
Mr. Sensenig: Are you proposing a minimum size to the modulation, David?
Board Member Hirsch: You mean a minimum depth, let’s say, or projection?
Mr. Sensenig: For façade area?
Chair Thompson: Like instead of 20 to 50 feet, it might be like ten to 50 feet?
Mr. Sensenig: I was thinking more about the size of the modulation.
Chair Thompson: Oh, so a minimum of four feet. Do you want to change that?
Board Member Hirsch: No, not four feet. I have a problem with the depth of four feet. It doesn’t need
to be but it is stated that way.
Chair Thompson: It says two feet.
Board Member Hirsch: No, really two-and-a-half feet is plenty for a book case. In fact, if there were a
bay, a bay has to be off the floor and a bay can only project in small-scale residential a certain
dimension. I would go with a two-and-a-half foot dimension or whatever is in the code for bays. That’s
the minimum.
4.a
Packet Pg. 206
City of Palo Alto Page 36
Chair Thompson: I see that it says two feet. I am still unsure of your proposal.
Vice Chair Lee: I'm confused. Are we talking about (2)(B) OR (2)(A)? Which one are we talking about?
Board Member Hirsch: (2)(B), as well, doesn’t need to be more than two-and-a-half feet.
Board Member Baltay: David, does it help you to think that this is the standard if you want to meet the
objective criteria? Most good architects may choose to meet the subjective intent which we outlined at
the beginning. Because what you’re pointing out really is just the continuous problem of writing
objective criteria for good architecture and it is the same consistent issue that it is really hard to do. This
is obviously not a perfect set of standards, but it is a compromise. If you think back that maybe some
people will just choose to do something better it is better to be a little bit more restrictive than it is to just
try to get it right on everything. Does that help?
Board Member Hirsch: Not 100 percent. I look at this building and say what it does is create a look as if
it is four different separate buildings by putting a recess in there.
Board Member Baltay: Absolutely, but lacking any other means of achieving that reasonable objective
what do you do?
Board Member Hirsch: Hope that they use a bay or something else like…
Chair Thompson: I think they have an option to choose either, right? They can choose either the recess
or the bay.
Ms. Gerhardt: That is correct.
Chair Thompson: See that Chris has highlighted either on the screen.
Board Member Hirsch: It is all in order to create a vertical impression that this building has. If it is a
horizontal building, I don’t see the need for it.
Chair Thompson: I am still unclear what the proposed change is. I know that there is a horizontal grain
in figure three. Staff, can you clarify what this particular item (iii) continuous rhythm and pattern menu
is?
Mr. Sensenig: Yeah. There is (A) and (B) For (A), you use either vertical patterns of modulation or
windows or articulation or if you use horizontal patterns and modulation you are required to do a two-
foot deep and four-foot-wide vertical shift and modulation once every 50 feet in order to get a vertical
rhythm and pattern to your building facades.
Board Member Hirsch: I have an example for you, then. If we could put up on the board once again
Wilton Court.
[Setting up presentation.]
Board Member Hirsch: That whole center section without any recess would then be required to have
recesses.
Mr. Sensenig: No, they have a vertically oriented pattern of windows.
Board Member Hirsch: Where does it say that it is either a recessed or vertical oriented pattern or?
Mr. Sensenig: In (3)(A) it says you can use vertical patterns and modulation facades and then not have
to do the break. Now, if that façade section… a continuous façade is greater than 100 feet, which I do
not believe in Wilton Court that continuous façade is greater than 100 feet.
4.a
Packet Pg. 207
City of Palo Alto Page 37
Ms. Gerhardt: No, it’s about 80 feet.
Mr. Sensenig: Correct. So the middle section would not meet that requirement, but if it was 25 feet
longer then it would potentially need a break or a set of bays.
(Crosstalk)
Board Member Baltay: … that got 25 percent bigger than you might want to do something with it.
Chair Thompson: You might want to break it up.
Vice Chair Lee: I am wondering, Board Member Hirsch, would you feel more comfortable if it read for
continuous façades greater than 120 feet in length? I am just thinking of ways we can compromise. Are
you thinking 100 feet is too…
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, Grace, yeah. Absolutely.
Vice Chair Lee: I wonder about that. I wonder if 120 feet is more appropriate there, or I wasn’t sure if
you were proposing, David, that you wanted the… it is either/or, so the depth of two feet and then did
you want the width to be two feet? I wasn’t sure what you were proposing. I just want to clarify how
we might find some compromise.
Chair Thompson: Let me see the document again. Vice Chair Lee, where are you suggesting? Is that
under (B)?
Vice Chair Lee: I am just so relieved to see Wilton Court actually would apply under (iii)(1) vertical
pattern. Bu tin the case that you go to (iii)(2) it breaks down to A and B, that’s for façade that are
greater than 100 feet in length. I am just wondering if that is too restrictive and maybe we want to go to
a longer length or I wasn’t sure if Board Member Hirsch would prefer something like that vertical shift is
two feet deep and two feet wide, for example. I wasn’t sure when we were talking about dimensions if
that was something that would help or is it about the length being a little longer before (inaudible).
Board Member Hirsch: If you could put up the Wilton Court. The thing about it I like is that the only
depth modulation in the whole façade are the real modulation where the whole building steps back.
Vice Chair Lee: To this point, we have written 100 feet in length.
(Crosstalk)
Board Member Hirsch: There will be a modulation but it doesn’t need to be two feet by two feet. It can
be whatever it is.
Chair Thompson: Yeah, it’s a minimum.
Ms. Gerhardt: For reference, Wilton Court is 165 feet long in total.
Board Member Hirsch: In total, yes I know. I'm aware.
Mr. Sensenig: What is the depth of the change in façade plane on Wilton Court?
Ms. Gerhardt: Three-and-a-half feet.
Board Member Hirsch: There are really two breaks in it; one of them is the stairs break and the other
one is the entry break.
4.a
Packet Pg. 208
City of Palo Alto Page 38
Chair Thompson: They would meet it because the minimum is two and they have done three-and-half.
Mr. Sensenig: Actually, the minimum as discussed at the last meeting is now four feet for at least one of
them.
Vice Chair Lee: Maybe that needs to be adjusted.
Chair Thompson: To three-and-a-half?
Vice Chair Lee: Or two. Two or three feet.
Board Member Baltay: Maybe that should be smaller, yeah.
Chair Thompson: Should we do a quick straw poll? What do you propose, Vice Chair Lee?
Vice Chair Lee: I would be fine with two feet so that it is clearly modulating. It is going to be cut out
and you still would read that line a as depth line.
Chair Thompson: Would you be open to three feet?
Board Member Hirsch: I agree with Grace on that dimension. A minimum of two feet.
Chair Thompson: What do the other Board Members think? Board Member Lew
Board Member Baltay: Three feet. Three feet for me, please.
Chair Thompson: Three feet for Board Member Baltay. Board Member Lew?
Board Member Lew: I'm here. I am not sure what is being proposed. Is it two feet wide?
Mr. Sensenig: Its buildings between 150 and 200 feet in length need a break that is a minimum of 64
square feet with a minimum width of eight feet and a minimum depth of either two, three, or four feet.
Chair Thompson: We are trying to decide on that number. It has been reopened.
Board Member Baltay: This is coming out of Wilton Court where the depth of the break is 3.5 feet.
Vice Chair Lee: Sorry, Chris; I am looking at packet page 63. I thought we were talking about
compatible rhythm and pattern.
Mr. Sensenig: Yes, there's an overlap.
Vice Chair Lee: Okay. It would be in both, you're saying?
Mr. Sensenig: The only one we are proposing to change right now is that you would need one break that
is a minimum depth of two, three, or four feet, and one that is eight feet wide. The other one we do not
need to change. You can propose changing it but if we change this one to two or three feet, then Wilton
Court would have made it. Alternatively, you could say it is only six inches off and Wilton Court would be
a better building if the difference in façade plane was four feet instead of 3.5 feet.
Vice Chair Lee: Looking at packet page 63, those diagrams, right? Those were the (inaudible) that I was
referring to that are currently listed as four feet wide rather than what we are talking about.
Mr. Sensenig: We are just talking about the depth right now.
Chair Thompson: We’re talking about depth. It says two feet deep on those other pages.
4.a
Packet Pg. 209
City of Palo Alto Page 39
Vice Chair Lee: Okay, got it. We are just talking about depth. Board Member Lew, I saw you were
going to say something.
Ms. Gerhardt: We did move back to packet page 56.
Board Member Hirsch: We did? Oh my.
Ms. Gerhardt: It’s all interrelated, unfortunately. We are on packet page 56 right now.
Chair Thompson: The one that we’re looking at on the screen right now?
Ms. Gerhardt: Correct.
Chair Thompson: I want to give Board Member Lew a chance to speak.
Board Member Lew: I think we are getting stuck here. The intent of the code is to prevent long, boring,
monotonous façades at a pedestrian scale. If you factor in a pedestrian is walking at three miles per
hour, you want breaks in the façade and you also want vertical proportions to make it more in keeping
with the three-mile per hour pedestrian speed. Those long horizontal façade and long horizontal
windows are really just much too monotonous. The more that you break the façade and make seemingly
artificial breaks in the building is actually better. The more breaks, the better; deeper the better. We
can argue (inaudible).
Chair Thompson: Sorry, you cut out in that last thing that you said.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Board Member Hirsch: I don’t have a lot to add. I think I am actually fine with the way it is in the
current proposal.
Board Member Baltay: I’ll change and support what Alex is saying; I think we should leave it alone.
Chair Thompson: I also think we should leave it alone and keep going. Okay, any more comments on
.060? I think we went through Board Member Lew, Baltay, and Hirsch. Vice Chair Lee.
Vice Chair Lee: I do just have this comment. I wasn’t sure because I don’t have the current revised.
Chris, I am looking at what the packet is which is not revised. I just wanted to go to that non-residential
ground floor. It’s (D).
Chair Thompson: Ground floor character?
Vice Chair Lee: It’s the recessed entries at non-res ground floors and primary entries for weather
protection. When I see it, it is (C) human-scaled architecture and then (4)(B) primary entries that
include weather protection is a minimum of four feet by four feet wide. Yes, exactly where you are there
with the ground-floor character.
Ms. Gerhardt: Packet page 65.
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to check on that eight feet wide by six feet wide which’s
(ii)(C). Recess in the entry for non-residential ground floor and we are providing an awning or some kind
of recessed entry. Does it always remain six by eight and is that appropriate given that earlier we said
four by four for recessed entries for weather protection for primary entries. The fact that it is non-
residential and a ground floor can we allow for more flexibility or do we all feel strongly that eight by
six… I am just trying to find consistency and also allowing for flexibility.
4.a
Packet Pg. 210
City of Palo Alto Page 40
Chair Thompson: I want to give staff a quick chance to comment on if we changed it here would that
trickle and change something else elsewhere.
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, let’s find out.
Mr. Sensenig: Sorry, I need to check where the other section was. Here it is.
Vice Chair Lee: Chris, I am thinking of a double door and single door situation.
Mr. Sensenig: Yeah.
Vice Chair Lee: If we are proposing this, we are assuming the thinking behind four by six, but what if it
is a single door?
Mr. Sensenig: It kind of assumes a double door.
Board Member Lew: I am not sure if all non-residential ground floor entries are single door versus
double door. Generally, double door but I…
Mr. Sensenig: The intent of this is serving an office or other thing might be an upper floor.
Vice Chair Lee: There are definitely units on Cal Ave where it is not a double door and it’s (inaudible). If
it is only four by four art a primary entry for weather protection; same intent.
Mr. Sensenig: Yeah, same intent so it could change. The intent was it is going to something that is
serving potentially more people than a residential building and would have potentially more ins and outs
that is not a storefront. It could be say ground-floor office or…
Vice Chair Lee: I am just thinking of all the different nail salons, or…
Mr. Sensenig: That would fit under the storefront and retail ground floors where it is six-foot by four-foot
requirement.
Vice Chair Lee: Okay, is that appropriate? Should we think about those dimensions? I am just thinking
about walking down some of our corridors and if we were to have a business if it is divided into a
storefront or a… I just wanted to bring it up.
Chair Thompson: Are you suggesting something smaller, Vice Chair Lee? Not six by four but four by
four?
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, I am.
Chair Thompson: Okay, these are minimums, I think. They could get bigger if they wanted to.
Vice Chair Lee: absolutely.
Chair Thompson: I think I am clear with the proposal; we are talking about the weather protection
awning and reducing the minimum from six feet to four feet in this section (D)(i)(B). Is that clear to staff
what the proposal is?
Mr. Sensenig: Yes.
Ms. Gerhardt: That’s just a possible change to the depth?
Mr. Sensenig: And width, right?
Chair Thompson: It’s just the width.
4.a
Packet Pg. 211
City of Palo Alto Page 41
Vice Chair Lee: The depth would remain.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think we just want to be clear that there are two sections here.
Mr. Sensenig: Yeah.
Ms. Gerhardt: Under (D), ground floor character, there are requirements for storefronts, individual
stores, versus under (ii) is the requirement for more of a lobby situation I would assume, Chris.
Mr. Sensenig: Yes, or say an office entry or something that is not a storefront entry serving…
Ms. Gerhardt: Chris has it highlighted in yellow now. For the storefront, it would be six by four, and for
the office entry or lobby-type situation it would be the eight by six. What specific requirements are we
looking to change? We don’t want to make the bottom one smaller than the top one.
Vice Chair Lee: I think the there is an issue of a double door versus a single door is my simple point in
terms of an exterior entry door.
Ms. Gerhardt: Maybe if we say in the non-residential we say a single door would be six by four and a
double door would be eight by six. Just throwing ideas.
Board Member Hirsch: Six is very deep.
Chair Thompson: Is the thinking the wider one would sort of creates a more prominent entrance
assuming these are side by side?
Mr. Sensenig: the previous context space design criteria stated that the size of the entry -- I’m
paraphrasing here -- should relate to the number of people served.
Chair Thompson: Jodie, are you suggesting instead of having it stipulated here that we note… maybe
that is the suggestion that we note the size of entry correspond to the awning depth and width?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think Chris was trying to… the size of the entry… we are assuming that non-residential
ground floors and those sorts of entries are accommodating more people and therefore it should be more
prominent. How do you make it more prominent? You put a bigger awning on it or something like that.
Mr. Sensenig: Or you make it wider and maybe four feet is the right depth for all of them and you just
deal with width. But even if it is a single door in a retail situation, like in this drawing here, if this width
of this recessed door was only four feet wide is that the right dimension, or even if it is a single door
should it have two transom windows on the side and be centered or on one side so there is more space
for people to maneuver around each other.
Vice Chair Lee: My hesitation is that not knowing I think six by eight is too generous, too prescribed. I
guess my thought was weather protection so that this is an awning for weather protection or a place to
wait. It is a recessed situation, as well, right?
Mr. Sensenig: It’s optional on recessing.
Vice Chair Lee: Okay, optional on recessed?
Chair Thompson: So it could project out?
Mr. Sensenig: Yes.
4.a
Packet Pg. 212
City of Palo Alto Page 42
Chair Thompson: Vice Chair Lee, are you proposing to amend both of these situations that are
highlighted in front of us?
Vice Chair Lee: I think we should just have a minimum on the one below. Yes, amend the minimum on
(ii)(C) is where I was.
Chair Thompson: Okay, so we don’t want to deal with the one above?
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, I understand that one.
Chair Thompson: Okay. We are not going to prose changing that one at this time. The proposal here is
to… can you remind me, Vice Chair Lee? What's the proposal?
Vice Chair Lee: I think it is width. Sorry, the depth. No, no, both the width and depth, right, because it
is a single door.
Board Member Baltay: I can support making them the same; six feet wide, four feet deep on both. I
think it will be hard to differentiate the two in practice. I think, Grace, it is entirely conceivable that a
tenant could change from a single to a double door in the future. It is tough to meet ADA on a four-foot
recess. I think we should stick to six feet wide and four feet deep for both.
Chair Thompson: Is that your proposal, Vice Chair Lee, six feet wide, four feet deep?
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah. Isn’t it hard? We just don’t know the situation, right? It is better than what it is
now. I‘ll accept that.
Chair Thompson: Okay. What do Board Members Lew and Hirsch think?
Board Member Hirsch: Agree.
Board Member Lew: I will support the reduction.
Chair Thompson: Okay. I am fine with it as well. Any other comments Vice Chair Lee on this chapter?
Vice Chair Lee: I am ready for the next section. I think that was the hardest one. I say that; I just
jinxed it, didn’t I? .070, do we have any comments? Let’s start with Board Member Baltay.
Board Member Baltay: No, I have no comments.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I have two quick comments, one is that the porch shall be within one step of the
finished floor height, and that is in several of the sections. There are a whole bunch of other building
and accessibility codes that come into play on there in this one. I think it is not necessary. My second
comment is under section (B)(c) for patio entries. It mentions fences not six feet, 30 inches in height. I
want to mention when you have a gate in the fence, there are ADA requirements that would be higher
than 30 inches. The latch would have to be higher, like 34 to 48 inches; the reach range of a wheelchair
user. I think we should try to make that allowance.
Chair Thompson: To be taller?
Chair Thompson: Let’s discuss these really quick. I also had a note about this issue as well and that we
should allow that fence to get taller. What do the other Board Members think? Board Member Baltay.
Board Member Baltay: I could support making it 36 inches high, which would then allow ADA
compliance.
4.a
Packet Pg. 213
City of Palo Alto Page 43
Chair Thompson: Not 42?
Board Member Baltay: Not 42, no. I think it is a serious issue. You don’t want to get too separated.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Hirsch?
Board Member Hirsch: Actually, I think 42, a guardrail height, is okay and appropriate but a 36
minimum.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chair Lee.
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, I am okay with 36.
Chair Thompson: What are your thoughts on 42?
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, 42 is okay too.
Vice Chair Lee: I am trying to think of places I have been like this and I am okay with 42.
Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew, did you have any comments on the lowering to 36?
Board Member Lew: Lower is better. I think the issue is just the gate.
Chair Thompson: Okay. I am in support of making this code complaint. I do think 42 is the requirement
for a guard rail. I think we need to think of the right verbiage here.
Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, if I may, Chris, I think this is a patio entry. Is this above grade?
Mr. Sensenig: No, it would be at grade.
Ms. Gerhardt: if you can show that picture there.
Chair Thompson: Oh, it’s at grade.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes.
Board Member Hirsch: Thirty-six is sufficient then.
Chair Thompson: I see.
Ms. Gerhardt: The picture is on packet page 67 and 68. A patio would be at grade.
Chair Thompson: For whatever reason, I thought it was above grade. In that case, I think 36 is fine.
Do other Board Members agree?
Board Member Hirsch: Agree.
Chair Thompson: All right, 36 it is. Any more comments, Board Member Lew? You had one about the
one step. Are you suggesting that we remove (B)(2)?
Board Member Lew: It seems unnecessary because it is going to be addressed in the building code and
all of our accessibility codes.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Do you propose removing it?
4.a
Packet Pg. 214
City of Palo Alto Page 44
Board Member Lew: When I have worked on affordable housing projects, I have gone through incredible
brain damage doing California accessibility code and building code, and then also dealing with ADA as
well as federal accessibility requirements which don’t always perfectly align with ADA. I am not sure that
this is actually doing anything. It is not helping any.
Mr. Sensenig: I believe the intent of adding this was from a comment from Board Member Baltay to
clarify that the height of the porch or stoop should be at the same level at the unit.
Board Member Baltay: I can see if it were a situation where your unit doesn’t have to comply with ADA
and then it might be an issue.
Board Member Lew: Okay. Let’s just leave it in then.
Chair Thompson: Okay. We had no comments from Board Member Baltay. We went through Board
Member Lew’s comments. Board Member Hirsch, do you have any comments on .070?
Board Member Hirsch: No, none.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chair Lee, any comments on .070?
Vice Chair Lee: I believe we discussed last time, right? Since we are here on the screen I think I got
voted down. I said five by five so the porch can fit inside for (B)(b) porch rather than a six-foot square.
Board Member Baltay: I think she’s right; we talked about that.
Vice Chair Lee: Okay, sorry. We don’t need to…
Board Member Baltay: If you want to do it again, it is fine, Grace. It’s a fluid thing.
Chair Thompson: Typically, if we have already talked about it I don’t want to reopen it.
Chair Thompson: I don’t have the updated one in my packet. Would you just mind scrolling down,
Chris? I just want to make sure of the things we talked about.
Mr. Sensenig: I did change five foot by five foot square for patio entry.
Vice Chair Lee: That’s right, but not on the porch?
Mr. Sensenig: Not on the porch.
Vice Chair Lee: Okay. We did that last time. I think I am done with this section.
Chair Thompson: Okay, great. I also don’t have any comments on .070 that were not already discussed.
Okay, .080? Any comments? Let’s start with Board Member Baltay.
Board Member Baltay: No comments.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: No.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch.
Board Member Hirsch: Come back to me. I am still thumbing through.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Vice Chair Lee.
4.a
Packet Pg. 215
City of Palo Alto Page 45
Vice Chair Lee: I am good to go here.
Chair Thompson: Okay. I didn’t have any comments. Was that enough time, Board Member Hirsch?
Ms. Gerhardt: Just to clarify on the open space, you're not going to see the actual square footage
requirement in 18.24 because that will be in other parts of the code. This section is just meant to add
further details about the depth and things like that.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Any other comments, Board Member Hirsch?
Board Member Hirsch: Nope.
Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Moving on to .090 on the materials. We’ll start with Board Member
Baltay. Any comments?
Board Member Baltay: Yes, I had made some notes here about façade materials. Does that include
window glazing as part of an area when you're measuring a façade area? Two comments, one was on
the measuring of the area. How do we determine that?
Mr. Sensenig: I believe at our last discussion, what we discussed was that it was the full area of the
façade and we took away any requirement of the primary material and only have requirements on the
secondary and accent materials.
Board Member Baltay: Do you have that in front of you how that is now structured?
Mr. Sensenig: I do have the words in front, yes.
Board Member Baltay: The chart I am looking at, even in the most recent packet, seems to be different
than what you just described.
Ms. Gerhardt: The packet is the original and doesn’t show the changes.
Board Member Baltay: Okay. Explain to me, Chris, if you could, what we are going to do here.
Mr. Sensenig: All right. Under .090(B)(i) my copy reads primary, secondary, and accent materials are
allowed or prohibited as in the residential and residential mixed-use material list, which may be updated
from time to time. (ii), secondary materials are prohibited are primary cladding on building façades and
shall not be allowed on more than 35 percent of each building façade. Accent materials are permitted on
no greater than five percent of each façade as trims or accents.
Ms. Gerhardt: That is already shown on packet page 71, basically saying that there is no percentage for
the primary materials, correct?
Mr. Sensenig: Correct.
Ms. Eisberg: Right. This section shouldn’t have changed because we did not talk about it at the last
meeting.
Board Member Baltay: That makes sense. I think I remember now going through that. You originally
had percentages on primary materials. Is that right?
Mr. Sensenig: Correct. We said that was too hard to predict and also with windows it makes it difficult
to quantify and suggest what is a good amount.
4.a
Packet Pg. 216
City of Palo Alto Page 46
Board Member Baltay: I apologize for bringing that back up. You're right; you reacted to that well. My
second comment was regarding Section(B)(i) where it says the residential mixed-use material list which
may be updated from time to time, who updates it on what authority? I’d like to see the ARB involved in
that updating.
Ms. Eisberg: That was our intention. We were thinking to actually pull this materials list out of this
document so that it would get adopted by resolution, exist on the website, therefore, the ARB could
weigh in and update it from time to time without going through an ordinance.
Board Member Baltay: I suggest that it goes through the ARB process, that we ultimately make a
recommendation to the director, et cetera, and be maintained by staff. I think we should be a little bit
clearer that that is how it is going to happen. Just saying updated from time to time is a little bit vague.
Chair Thompson: Board Member Baltay, you're suggesting adding some text here that stipulates as
directed by the ARB.
Board Member Baltay: I would say…
Ms. Gerhardt: Updated from time to time by the director of planning with a recommendation by the ARB.
Board Member Baltay: Exactly; that would be good.
Chair Thompson: I don’t foresee any other Board Members taking issue with this. Please speak now if
you do.
Vice Chair Lee: I just have a question. What if an applicant actually is proposing a material that is not
on this list?
Ms. Eisberg: If they are not looking to meet objective standards, they would just need to meet the intent
statement. If they are looking to meet objective standards then they would need to select something
from the material list, but if they are going through the typical ARB process, they could meet the intent
statement and that material could be reinforced and approved by the board.
Ms. Gerhardt: As new materials come along, the director will update the list.
Board Member Baltay: I suppose an applicant could petition the Board to just update the list, too, Grace.
Vice Chair Lee: That’s what I was going to say. That is what I assumed.
Board Member Baltay: That’s a given; we don’t need to state how that process gets initiated.
Vice Chair Lee: An applicant would know just to do that. You could be advised that by the staff. Okay.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes.
Vice Chair Lee: Chair Osma, I can stop there. I had another comment but if you want to talk.
Chair Thompson: If Board Member Baltay was done with his comments.
Board Member Baltay: That’s it. I'm done.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Thanks. Let’s move to you, Vice Chair Lee.
Vice Chair Lee: Great. The other question I had was -- I know we talked about percentages -- do we all
agree that five percent is the right… to me we are calculating percentages versus by surface area
probably in elevations that the planning staff does. I just want to make sure that we revisit that five
4.a
Packet Pg. 217
City of Palo Alto Page 47
percent if it is more of a range when we talk about accent material on a project. The reason why I bring
it up is I am picturing a project that is maybe not the traditional project that we have seen over the years
but sometimes there is a project that is more contemporary. Is five percent still the right percentage for
accent material? I just don’t know that I would know as an applicant that my accent material is five
percent right off.
Mr. Sensenig: Just to remember, the only materials this currently applies to is glass block, corrugated
metal, and vegetated wall panels or trellises.
Vice Chair Lee: Okay. That’s a good point. Maybe also what I am reacting to is texture and color in
terms of an accent. I still don’t know if five percent is the right number.
Chair Thompson: Would you want to propose a bigger number?
Vice Chair Lee: Or a range, maybe, or I don’t know. I don’t know what the best…
Chair Thompson: I think it is a no greater than number. It would be anything under a certain number.
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, maybe it should be greater.
Chair Thompson: What do you propose?
Vice Chair Lee: Is ten too much, or eight? Because I don’t know what five percent is I just… when we
talk about a project, do you all have a thought on that in terms of accent material? What is the right
greater than?
Mr. Sensenig: A typical residential façade, the fenestration is in that 15 to 30 percent range, typically.
Vice Chair Lee: So subtract that.
Mr. Sensenig: Not subtracting that from the façade. What I am getting at, I guess, is particularly with
the glass block, would you want the glass block to get to a typical window range? I am just trying to
give some reference.
Vice Chair Lee: The glass block might not be used as a window per se on a façade. I don’t know. It is
just something to think about. I mean, I just react to prescriptive…
Board Member Baltay: Grace, what if we put on our materials table percentages as well? With glass
block, you might allow up to ten percent but with gold-plated metal pieces, it might be only three
percent. We can then adjust that from time to time as the situation arises. Right now we are deciding
in the vacuum here.
Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, it’s a slippery slope.
Board Member Hirsch: Could I chime in?
Vice Chair Lee: I just don’t know what is the right one. I feel like five percent might be too low. Sorry,
go ahead.
Chair Thompson: Board Member Hirsch.
Board Member Hirsch: Just on glass block itself, because, to me, glass block is fairly out of date but
channel glass I very commonly used these days, and sometimes it is used in large sections of façade s
very effectively. I think the generic term glass block is not the appropriate term to use but it should be
three-dimensional glass surfaces or something like that. Chris, I’ll let you look it up and find out what is
the best way to describe it. In many buildings, we note that glazing systems are the primary element.
4.a
Packet Pg. 218
City of Palo Alto Page 48
Putting limitations on them could cause architects real headaches. I have a number of other materials to
talk about but I thought I would chime in on the glass block.
Vice Chair Lee: If I may, Chair Osma, I just want to follow up. Thank you, Board Member Hirsch,
because I similarly feel that way in the way you are expressing yourself The vegetated wall panels or
trellises, for example, can’t be more than five percent. I am thinking of examples in Europe again where
the vegetated wall panel is definitely more than five percent. Maybe even in San Francisco, there is one
that’s more than five percent. Glass block is very outdated and it is not used so much and we have three
things as accent. I am just not sure of this one.
Chair Thompson: Yeah. I think it is worth discussing. That was one of my comments as well, the
vegetated wall panels. If there was a way to suggest that they could also use that as a primary material.
How cool of a building would that be?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Chair Thompson: Who cares what it looks like, right? It has vegetated wall panels everywhere. I am
kidding but I wonder if there is a way to note that somehow in this list. Is it possible to note that it could
be… is there somewhere where it says it is an accent it could be a primary or something like that?]
Mr. Sensenig: No, it’s hierarchical. You can use a primary material in any way you want but you can
only use a secondary material up to 35 percent. If I am hearing people correctly, the siding on things as
accent materials does not seem necessary. Glass block and corrugated metal could move to secondary
materials and vegetative wall panels and trellises could move to a primary material.
Board Member Baltay: What if we do away with the notion of primary, secondary, and accent and
instead just put a maximum percentage for each material as a total percentage of the façade? We can
take a stab at that now, but over time we can adjust that. We might have a future debate over whether
vegetated wall panels are appropriate at 1000 percent on a façade but right now I think we’d all agree
that glass or transparent glass is appropriate at 100 percent.
Mr. Sensenig: Just so you know, the date on which an applicant would submit their application would be
the time that this list is cemented for that project.
Board Member Baltay: That’s right. That’s fair enough. That’s the way it is with all the code. Right now
you could just translate everywhere that says P you could say 100 percent. Everywhere it days S would
say 35 percent and everywhere it says A would just say five percent. It is having the same effect except
this is much more flexible for us in the future.
Chair Thompson: What do the other Board Members think of this proposal? Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I am actually okay with what is proposed in the packet and I don’t quite understand
what Peter is proposing. I did test out the areas -- I think two meetings ago -- and I am comfortable
with the percentages that we had previously. I support this iteration of it as well.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Hirsch.
Board Member Hirsch: I think this is the time I have to talk about some of the general thoughts I’ve had
here that have to do with all of this. I don’t think I am in favor of the percentages or Peter’s concept
there. I would like to liberalize the lettering ends I would agree with. Let me go down my list here.
Material section might disallow 3585 El Camino Real, a recent project, because the concrete frame is
used as a primary construction material. In fact, if you added it up it may not be 35 percent of the whole
façade. I could see somebody challenging it as a primary material since it is, after all, construction. How
do you deal with something like an important place frame as in that building? I think wood veneer
should be secondary material in larger buildings where it is a multi-story building. I could see it where it
is manageable in a smaller building but I think there is a question in taller buildings. I haven’t heard you
4.a
Packet Pg. 219
City of Palo Alto Page 49
changing the designation for glass block to glazing and some other definition of it; three-dimensional
glazing or something like that which is more appropriate than using the term glass block. Concrete
blocks, which are noted as secondary materials, sometimes can be beautifully finished and polished, and
economically so that you could get a very nice façade or major portion of a façade with a concrete bock.
To have it as secondary material I don’t think is appropriate. Standing seam metal of course if going to
be used on roofs all over the place now. By having it a secondary material is it okay for it to be used on
a roof? Poured-in-place concrete panels or poured-in-place concrete is a beautiful modern material that
is used in some high-end houses, and suppose someone does want to come along and use poured-in-
place concrete. You describe fine-grain materials -- I pointed this out before -- such as brick, wood, and
shingles not to exceed eight inches in either height or width. Have we agreed to change that dimension
so that it can accept a larger proportioned dimension? GFRC will always come in larger dimensions,
certainly much, much longer ones. I personally have used EIFS, and that is noted as N. Tell me why an
outside insulation with stucco no? Why is that a no? Then, there is no mention of stucco and we were
looking at it in today’s houses. It is very successfully used in this climate. Why does it get such a bad
rap here? There's a bunch of them, Chris, maybe you could focus.
Mr. Sensenig: I’ll try to attempt to answer some of them. The one on the size of the human-scaled
elements, it is only one out of eight ways and you have to pick two. It says one of its dimensions needs
to be eight-inch. An eight-inch by 100-inch panel would fit that definition.
Board Member Hirsch: But it is not one foot by whatever it is.
Mr. Sensenig: No, correct. Again, it is only one out of eight options and you have to choose two. I do
not have a comment on this material list. That is for the ARB to decide what goes and does not go on
this material list.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, then I throw it open to our members.
Chair Thompson: I was going to suggest something less restrictive than Peter’s suggestion of the usage.
Maybe we just say acceptable and non-acceptable and we do away with the percentages of everything.
Vice Chair Lee: I concur. I think that is the way to go.
Board Member Hirsch: I concur too.
Chair Thompson: What do the other Board Members think? Board Member Baltay.
Board Member Baltay: I could support that. I was ready to come back to David on some of his things
but I do think that the actuality of measuring these percentages is going to be challenging and I can tell
you from a practicing point of view nobody is going to be able to check whether it is 35 percent of 42
percent. You'd need your computer system up and running to do that. Staff is going to be at the mercy
of the applicant preparing these numbers.
Chair Thompson: What do you think, Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I think I previously stated that I support what is being proposed in the report. I
think we do want to limit the amount of metal on there. If somebody wants to use a lot of metal, then
they can come to the ARB and we can actually take a look at it. Again, this is objective standards; they
can propose something very radical, completely out of context with the neighborhood and get it
approved. I think we should have some guardrails on this one.
Vice Chair Lee: I understand your perspective, Board Member Lew. My feeling is that there is a calling
out a primary, secondary, and accent and that would remain. We would simply just remove the
percentages. That is why I am comfortable keeping that primary, secondary.
Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, if we remove the percentages how would we be evaluating these?
4.a
Packet Pg. 220
City of Palo Alto Page 50
Chair Thompson: Is that a question for Vice Chair Lee?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes.
Vice Chair Lee: I think other cities do this without percentages. Primary is defined; secondary and
accent might have a definition. I don’t know if primary might be the main or the body. I mean, I think
when you get to percentages -- just to go to Board Member Baltay’s point-- it is just going to be difficult.
I feel like most people understand what primary. Secondary, and accent… most applicants would… it
would go back to staff to have that conversation but it would also for the percentages.
Mr. Sensenig: I think it would fall back to if the primary material was 35 percent of the overall façade,
then any other material would have to be below 35 percent. Without providing percentages, that is
about as… it is greater than, right?
Board Member Baltay: This discussion is persuading me that Alex’s comment is probably the right
response, Grace. You’re sliding into the subjective review. Yes, we all think we know what primary and
secondary are but for staff to give an objective review of that is not possible.
Vice Chair Lee: Without percentages, you mean.
Board Member Baltay: Alex’s comment about having some guardrails on this is a good idea, I think. It
comes back to me of David’s comment poured-in-place concrete can be a wonderful building material
when used properly by a talented architect. I think that is the case where you have real design review
on things. I shudder to think what happens if you don’t have to have that reviewed. I think it can also
be really difficult to use properly. Again, having some guardrails is a good way to put it. I think this
whole list is about guardrails. Right now I am persuaded by Alex’s point of view.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s take a straw poll to leave the list as is the way that it is written right now,
as Board Member Lew has suggested. I know we have had a lot of suggestions on how to change but I
want to get a temperature straw poll of what we think if we just don’t change it; if we just keep it as is.
Board Member Baltay: Is it possible… okay, go ahead.
Ms. Gerhardt: We have included the change though that the list would come back to the ARB from time
to time.
Chair Thompson: Right. I also wanted to point out that I heard Board Member Hirsch and Vice Chair Lee
mention the question about glass. Glass is the fourth item from the top as a primary material.
Board Member Baltay: Stucco is also on that list. I think David might have missed it because it is
shaded.
Board Member Hirsch: It’s on the primary?
Board Member Baltay: Yeah.
Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Board Member Baltay: And it should properly be called cement plaster, not stucco but…
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, okay, fine.
Board Member Baltay: We can get into that. David, I think other things about the details of what you
call these glass block and whatnot is better left to (inaudible) ARB. Maybe it comes back sooner than a
later where we can really dive into it.
4.a
Packet Pg. 221
City of Palo Alto Page 51
Board Member Hirsch: That’s a simple change in definition.
Board Member Baltay: Yeah, you're right. Three-dimensional glass units (inaudible). T1-11 plywood is
also a trade standard. It’s not really a kind of plywood and it is widely used. Only Chrysler makes Jeeps;
there's not such a thing as a Jeep. Osma, can I make one more pitch? Alex, if you could listen to me
that instead of primary, secondary, and accent, just put the percentage in the column that way when we
realize that our percentage is wrong we don’t have to go back to Council to change the code. We just
change the percentage as part of the review process. That’s the only change. It doesn’t change the
substance behind this.
Board Member Lew: Okay, I am open to that.
Board Member Baltay: That’s the whole idea. It’s not to change any of the guts of what we are saying
but give us flexibility in the future.
Chair Thompson: I am hearing instead of a P we would say 100 percent. What do the other Board
Members think of this proposal? I’ll rescind my original straw poll so that we can discuss this.
Board Member Baltay: I support that, obviously.
Vice Chair Lee: I am comfortable with the P, S, A without percentages but I think I am in the minority.
Chair Thompson: You prefer the P, S, A? Okay.
Board Member Hirsch: I prefer the PSA. Grace, is that what you said just now? I couldn’t hear her.
Chair Thompson: Yeah, that’s what she said. Board Member Hirsch, are you with changing the P, S, A to
percentages?
Board Member Hirsch: I prefer the PSA but nobody has really responded to my question about poured-
in-place concrete if it is used for a structural element is it going to be considered a primary?
Board Member Baltay: No. David, I think we did address that and if that is the case the building should
go to architecture review.
Board Member Hirsch: That’s for panels. We didn’t talk about structure.
Board Member Baltay: We are just talking about the measured area of what is expressed. You can have
a structural concrete building that doesn’t express any concrete.
Board Member Hirsch: True. You can have structural concrete which does express concrete, like the one
we looked at.
Board Member Baltay: Those are decisions architects make.
Chair Thompson: To complete the straw poll, I think I would be in support of the percentage change if
only just to allow vegetated wall panels to go up to 100.
Board Member Baltay: That gives you that flexibility to change that percentage otherwise it is locked in
the code. What is accent or percentage or secondary?
Chair Thompson: Yeah. I think I heard three Board Members be in support of the percentage change as
part of the straw poll. We will have to see what that looks like but it sounds like maybe that may give us
some flexibility to respond to some of Board Member Hirsch’s comments that maybe we are not
4.a
Packet Pg. 222
City of Palo Alto Page 52
constricted to 35 percent for concrete. Maybe we could suggest more if the Board feels like that is
appropriate.
Board Member Baltay: It gives us tremendous flexibility. Grace, to your point in the future, we may well
decide that we could raise a lot of these up and that, again, we have that flexibility. That is what we are
writing into this really.
Vice Chair Lee: Thank you for all this discussion. I am sorry I brought it up and went on and on but I
guess you’re at a better place. I just don’t know when they are going to be coming back to us and that
is my concern. I appreciate this; I know we need to get completed.
Ms. Gerhardt: When would you like us to come back?
Vice Chair Lee: That is a good question. I was wondering if we were going to talk about that at the end
in terms of how these changes are going to come back. We might receive a complete revised in our
packet rather than in a PowerPoint.
Ms. Gerhardt: I think staff was hoping to get a recommendation today on the objective standards. The
project will be going to Planning Commission at the end of April on April 28th, I believe. We also have an
ARB meeting on 04/15. We have a lot of other items to handle that day.
Vice Chair Lee: Jodie, can I ask how the Planning Commission’s comments on our draft will be
communicated back to ARB? Is this our last chance and it keeps going on the highway to Council? I
wasn’t sure about that.
Ms. Gerhardt: We really are trying as best as possible for today to be the last day and to keep this
moving. We are trying to get to Council by summertime. That doesn’t mean that is set in stone; that is
just a desire.
Vice Chair Lee: I was just wondering because of the graphics discussion and if that was something that
the Planning Commission comments on and before it goes to Council if there was an ad hoc. I am just
not sure where we left that, for example.
Ms. Gerhardt: If we are going to have the subcommittee talk about graphics, that was a potential option
that was raised, we could… we don’t have to have necessarily settled before we go to Planning
Commission. We want to be close for sure but we could still have a little bit of time before we get to
Council. We’re not going to Council until the end of May or early June for sure. We would have some
time to look at this.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s keep going. We can discuss revisions. The only thing I wanted to add
here before we leave, to have the Board’s support to change the vegetated wall panels to 100 percent? I
see a nod for Vice Chair Lee. I see a shake from Board Member Lew.
Board Member Baltay: Osma, I would feel better if we could leave the percentages the way they are
now, and as soon as this whole thing is put into a statute by Council, then we should go back and look at
this material list once more. I don’t think it is fair to jump on one item now and push it. David has
strong feelings about a couple of other ones and we could spend all day on this list alone.
Chair Thompson: That’s true. That sounds good.
Board Member Baltay: I support what you're saying, maybe not 100 percent but close to that.
Vice Chair Lee: We can keep going. We are really over time also. With the knowledge that we will have
a chance to revisit this materials list again in the future, we will keep moving. Any comments on .100,
which is our last section.
4.a
Packet Pg. 223
City of Palo Alto Page 53
Board Member Baltay: No, I am fine with it.
Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: My only comment is that the native plant requirements in our findings has
disappeared and that we should try to put it back in some way. I realize that is going to be difficult.
The reason why you would use native plants is for sustainable design. It is less water, less maintenance,
and more food for insects, birds, and other wildlife. Those aren’t really mentioned in the intent
statements.
Chair Thompson: Maybe we could add it to bullet point number two? Would you be open to that
suggestion, Board Member Lew?
Board Member Lew: Yeah. I think we can add it to the intent statement. I think the tricky thing is going
to be actually having it implemented and enforced. I think that’s the difficult thing to do in this one. I
am not sure what to do.
Chair Thompson: I think if it helps in the intent statement, it might be worthwhile to put it in there just
for our own finding.
Board Member Lew: The issue is then what happens with it? My guess is that nothing will happen or not
much will happen.
Chair Thompson: What do the other Board Members think?
Board Member Baltay: I support putting it in the intent statements. That’s the code we have now. Let’s
keep it that way.
Vice Chair Lee: I don’t see any challenges adding it. I think that would be a plus. I think that the
bottom bullet point is interesting and that is the only comment I had on this section. That bottom bullet
point in terms of… I was thinking the second and the bottom are merged in terms of sustainability but I
am fine with it as is also.
Chair Thompson: Thanks.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, agree with those opinions.
Chair Thompson: I also agree we should add it back in at least for when we have discretionary review
we can have it as part of our findings. Okay. I think we made it through. We can go around and do
some general feedback and then we will try to make a motion unless there was anything else from staff
before we go there. Nope, okay. Let’s start with Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I think my only general comment is that it seems like we have a very complicated
menu of options for applicants. It seems so complicated with the different ways of getting a project
approved and I am thinking we need some kind of flow chart or something to help people navigate the
different ways of getting a project approved. We tried to do that in the past when we had a lot of PT
projects. That is where I am on this one. I will support the objective standards. I suspect that we won’t
get that many projects that use them. I think there are better options, like the Housing Incentive
Program and the affordable housing overlay, and also the planned home community zone that offer more
to developers than this particular process. That’s all of the general comments I have on this one.
Chair Thompson: Thank you.
Board Member Hirsch: If you wouldn’t mind I would like to do a little bit of review here. Some of it is
just for clarification and maybe it would be helpful to consider these as questions that need to be
answered but are not required today, some of them. For example, under 18.24.030, under packet page
4.a
Packet Pg. 224
City of Palo Alto Page 54
46, the item number (B)(i) is through lot connection more than 300 feet from an intersection street or
pedestrian walkway shall provide a public accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway connecting the two
streets. I just see some legal issues. It is like taking of a property, if it is, for example, not a very big
property the person who is the owner of that through lot might find some objective that it will limit the
use of that area. I think it is a question that should be discussed with legal to determine whether or not
it is a taking when you do something like that. That’s number one. Packet page 49, orientation and
setback, I think you need to discuss this. I remember at one point we had a building that actually had
two corners and now we have one corner. But what about buildings that have two corners. Is there a
treatment of a two-sided corner building? How about a three-sided corner building if such a thing would
exist. How are you going to treat the other corners if you're really only describing a single corner. Why
did you choose the corner that you chose? This is illogical in my mind that we pick on corner out of two
three to define what it should look like and say nothing about the rest of the building. Maybe there is an
answer to that, Chris. You guys can come up with an answer. Under (1)(b), a different material
application… I don’t know, did you make any changes in the text on that because last time I
recommended and/or fenestration pattern. Once again, Wilton Court uses the same building material
throughout and it is very successful. Did you change the wording? Could you answer that one?
Mr. Sensenig: I am confused about what we are doing here.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, sorry.
Mr. Sensenig: I thought this was just comment.
Board Member Hirsch: Under (B), a different material application on what I am reading in my book page
49. Different material application and fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade.
Ms. Gerhardt: This is an option. They don’t have to take this option.
Board Member Hirsch: But it would be fine if we put in and/or?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think we have gone over this section. I’ll let the Chair speak.
Chair Thompson: I see that Chris has his hand raised.
Mr. Sensenig: Yes, Chair Thompson, I would just like clarification on this part of the meeting.
Chair Thompson: This is supposed to be general comments on everything. I see that Board Member
Hirsch had a question about a certain item. I think since we haven’t seen the edited thing of everything,
I think clarification on if a certain section has changed already. Not proposing to change anything, but
just clarification on the document that we are going to be voting on. If you could provide that
clarification so we are able to make a better-informed decision about our vote that would be great.
Mr. Sensenig: Great. Can you please repeat the clarification you would like?
Board Member Hirsch: I would like an and/or written into that differentiated material on a corner.
Chair Thompson: It’s on .040.
Ms. Eisberg: It is on page ten, Chris, of our electronic document. It looks like you already made that
change.
Board Member Hirsch: If you did that’s great.
Mr. Sensenig: Thanks, Jean.
Ms. Gerhardt: Chris, do you just want to show it on the screen, page 10.
4.a
Packet Pg. 225
City of Palo Alto Page 55
Mr. Sensenig: Yes.
Chair Thompson: Thank you.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, great. Great. Now I know we are going back over these. I don’t have
very many items here but just bear with me and let me get through this and I look not to take up any
more of our lunchtime. We have A, B, and C. Under C, Osma and I discussed this and I can’t see a
reason for why -- I didn’t think too much about it back when it was presented -- you would have a corner
less than four feet than the abutting height. The thinking for that seems to be a weakening of a corner
to have the corner lower than. Osma pointed out you could have a balcony. Well, that’s a good point.
Mr. Sensenig: I will point out the mural project by BRIDGE Housing at the Oakland MacArthur Park
Station has this situation. I remember other places where you may have a roof deck or a special roof at
that point that is lower. It might have a trellis or something nice on top. The important thing is that it is
distinct from the rest of the building, whether it is higher or lower.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I will buy that one. I was thinking that, once again, Wilton Court -- it
seems to be the go-to project for me -- has a recess all around the corner at the base and we have seen
some other projects that do the same. A wonderful alternative -- you had that in your original drawings
but it disappeared -- as an option. Why not keep it there. Something such as a ground-floor recess not
to exceed -- I threw out a percentage -- 25 percent of the exterior facing corner area or something to
that effect and that as a diagram.
Mr. Sensenig: I believe that is allowed; ground-floor step backs and horizontal shifts of the ground-floor
façade with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 80 percent of the façade length.
Board Member Hirsch: But could that apply to a corner? It certainly is a more dramatic use of a corner
and an enhancement of the corner, just like rooftop or the other changes. Consider it, Chris. I think it is
worth consideration. I have just a few more here. Packet page 50. I have a problem with the
designated uses. There was packet page 50(C), a residential common open space adjacent to a common
interior space and less than two feet above fences and railings shall be provided. Okay. You have here a
publicly accessible open space plaza. I am not sure what you mean by that. Is that something that you
provide to the community?
Mr. Sensenig: Are we still on the corner?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, we are still on the corner. Corner two…
Mr. Sensenig: Yes. I believe 800 High Street has two of these. I think that is the correct project. Jean,
am I right on that 800 High Street residential project? They actually have publicly accessible open spaces
on each corner and they are about 20 by 40 feet. We have greatly reduced the requirement of that to
only e 450 square feet, but one of them, I believe, is used as an outdoor patio for a restaurant and the
other one is just a little parklet.
Board Member Hirsch: I would ask, Jodie, does that require a CUP?
Ms. Gerhardt: Outdoor dining requires an architectural review, usually at the staff level unless it is
involved with something else.
Board Member Hirsch: In my code under personal services, retail services, I thought a conditional use
permit was required.
Ms. Gerhardt: The use itself may need a CUP. I am just speaking to the outdoor dining aspect.
4.a
Packet Pg. 226
City of Palo Alto Page 56
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. All right. As an entry to a building, I have no question about that. A
public accessible open space plaza should be a landscaped plaza to the building located less than… that
seems appropriate to me but I question the other uses. I’ll go to those sites and see if that changes my
mind. Contextual massing under packet page 55, this one Elaine commented on it and I felt the same
way. It was on translation to lower density. We previously agreed on a depth of six feet, but that will be
a burden to any shallow site. Here is an agreement that we made that we would have it six feet wide
and six feet deep. I believe that’s what it is. Is that where we ended up with that?
Mr. Sensenig: It is a minimum of 70 percent of the façade length and a depth of six feet. It shall start
within two vertical feet of the height of the adjacent building.
Board Member Hirsch: I would propose and ask the Board to reconsider and make it less in order that it
doesn’t become a burned to some future designer. How do we get to take a vote on that? I’ll leave it up
to Osma. The significant breaks in packet page 56; I think we have talked that one to death. I think
we’re okay about that one. It works, as you pointed out, on Wilton Court; it really will work okay since
they’ve certainly met the minimums on that. I am finished with that piece. Now, general comments I
have other than that. Osma, maybe that one final one in packet 55 item number two…
Chair Thompson: The one that we just looked at?
Board Member Hirsch: I think since we went through bit by bit, I want to get a quick straw poll from the
Board if they're willing to reopen this item to address Board Member Hirsch’s comment. Vice Chair Lee
tried to reopen some comments and typically I haven’t been thinking that we should. It looks like we did
talk about this item if I were to see the comments. I just want to let the Board know that if we reopen
this item for Board Member Hirsch, we would set a precedent for reopening past items as well. If the
Board feels strongly about reopening past items, as well, it would keep us from finishing this meeting
very soon. Let’s do a quick straw poll if the board would like to reopen past items. Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: You're saying today?
Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Board Member Lew: Yes, I will.
Chair Thompson: You're okay to reopen past items?
Board Member Lew: Yes.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Baltay.
Board Member Baltay: No.
Chair Thompson: Board Member Hirsch.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Chair Thompson: Vice Chair Lee.
Vice Chair Lee: I would say no since we have already revisited, even though I am penalized as well.
However, we didn’t receive a revised document to review before this meeting. To give Board Members a
chance to review the revised before the meeting and not in the PowerPoint during the meeting seems
important. I am on the fence, here. I can go either way. I just want to be fair. We did not have a
revised document and we are voting on this today. I think that is a miss, and probably because we are
demanding a lot but it is a big deal. That’s where I stand. I’ll go either way.
4.a
Packet Pg. 227
City of Palo Alto Page 57
Chair Thompson: Okay. Chris, could you point out where it says six feet on this diagram? Thanks. I
was looking for the number instead of the word. I’ll allow just this one item to consider, which pushes
the straw poll in favor of just this one item. There is a proposal to reduce that minimum depth of six feet
to something less. Board Member Hirsch, what do you propose?
Board Member Hirsch: Actually, I think we aren’t looking at the right one because this is the transition to
lower-density buildings (ii). Where is the (ii)?
Chair Thompson: It’s right there; we’re looking at it.
Mr. Sensenig: Sorry, I misunderstood you. This is now the (ii).
Board Member Hirsch: The two, what is under two? Four feet deep.
Chair Thompson: We changed this one to four by two.
Board Member Hirsch: It’s changed already. It’s changed. We can forget my comment.
Chair Thompson: Great. Okay, we are not reopening all that. All right. Are there any more comments
from you, Board Member Hirsch?
Board Member Hirsch: I am looking to see.
Chair Thompson: Just general comments.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I think I am forever concerned on this one issue concerned about us putting
our stamp of approval on base, middle, and top. I am sorry to bring it up again, but to me, it is such an
essential decision that we make if we are going to buy into this and not diagram alternatives that are
possible. For me, it means a no on voting for this whole amazing piece of work that you guys have done.
I mean, I have to say that I am very impressed with it all, and Jodie’s coordination as well. That’s a
major issue and I really don’t see how we can say to the architectural community this is what you need
to do. I think it began mostly with Peter and I think it should end with Peter here. I think this is kind of
a disaster for us as architects to tell other architects how to build a building. I think it just too
constricting to say this. There are so many other good ways to do it and I think even if you look back
and Wilton Court or if you look at the Page Mill project, Windy Hill those projects violate the idea of it
being a base, middle, and top. Definitely, they aren’t of that ilk. For that reason, I don’t think we should
pass on this unless we alter that aspect of it. We shouldn’t let this one go through to the Council. That’s
my opinion.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Baltay.
Board Member Baltay: Okay, thanks. I will be able to recommend approval of this project. I won’t be
making a motion for it but I can support it. I have to say I am pleased and surprised at how well I think
this has turned out. At the beginning of this project, I really thought it would be a disaster trying to write
objective standards to ensure good design. I have been more than impressed with the work of staff has
done to pull this off. I think a lot of credit and kudos go to them for the incredibly hard work of trying to
put all of this together. We have been very critical but I think it really has come a long way. I think also
our own subcommittee worked very hard on this, and that shows. A lot of work has been done
compared to where we started. It is an impressive document we have put forward and I think we should
be aware of that. All that said, the only way I can recommend approval to this is because we limited it to
this strict case where it is the only alternative to the State’s statute which would be a worse alternative.
That being a strictly residential housing that is otherwise allowed by state law to have no review
whatsoever. I would not be able to recommend approval of this under any other circumstances. I do
want to be crystal clear with the staff and with the community as a whole, with the Council, and with the
architects around us that I cannot support objective design standards in a sense that this code puts forth
as any proper way to design and build our built environment. I think it is a terrible way to go and I feel
4.a
Packet Pg. 228
City of Palo Alto Page 58
very forced into this by state law. I do support it, but reluctantly and because it is the best of a bad
alternative. That’s my opinion on this whole thing. Thank you.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chair Lee.
Vice Chair Lee: Sorry, I am running low blood sugar now and moving slowly. I want to echo what Board
Member Baltay just mentioned. I completely agree with your comments, Peter. I very much appreciate
the efforts of staff and consultants. I very much also appreciate the efforts of fellow Board Members and
their work here. Thank you. I am not in any way comfortable with these objective design standards and
the drive to have to do this. I think that we have come a long way. There is a need for the state
mandate and impetuous for this. I worry that where this goes and how it progresses may not serve the
intent that we are hoping for given the choice, but I guess people might come through ARB as that other
option. The other piece I want to mention is I would really appreciate some kind of a document or staff
report on Planning Commission’s comments and this process of where it goes next and how the Council
might act upon it. Often when we hand off it is just gone and that to me is counterproductive to the
efforts of Boards to work together. It is a layering process and over time it does linearly go in one
direction but we need to learn from this and we need to learn from what other cities are doing on the
peninsula or in the Bay area, for example, that are of a city of a similar size. My feeling is we do need to
learn from precedence and, unfortunately, we are all doing this at the same time. I wonder if there is an
opportunity for us to work with staff or an ad hoc to learn what other efforts are occurring given this
need, and also how we might revisit or update in a way that is productive and fair to applicants and the
need for housing. I’ll pass it on.
Chair Thompson: Thanks. I think we heard from all four Board Members until now under general
comments. I wanted to thank everybody for their efforts. I know everybody put a lot of time into it. I
also appreciate all of the work staff has done to incorporate our comments. It is a tricky thing that we
always knew we were going to take; it is a really difficult thing to take on and I think what we have put
together now with all of the changes that we have made, the document that we have been looking at for
this whole meeting is really getting to a place where I think it is approvable. Naturally, it is difficult to do
something objective when everything about architecture is subjective and context space, but this is
where we are, and, unfortunately, it is what it is. I think we have developed a document that can really
stand on its own. Also, we have put in provisions where we can make edits to it as well on the diagrams
and on the materials in the future, which will help shape this thing in the future. Will someone make a
motion?
Board Member Baltay: You may have to do that, Osma. You're the chair, you have the heavy lifting.
MOTION
Chair Thompson: All right. I will move that we recommend approval of the objective design standards
while putting the diagrams back to review with the ad hoc committee that is currently working on the
objective design standards. The diagrams and also -- this was noted in the document that was edited
today -- that the materials will come back to us from time to time. That is my motion.
Board Member Lew: I will second.
Chair Thompson: Is there any discussion before we go to vote?
Board Member Baltay: Can I raise a question? I’ll do this delicately with the best of intentions. David,
do you want to remain on the ad hoc committee? We have the ad hoc committee charged with
reviewing these final diagrams. Is that something you want to do? You were so opposed to this earlier.
Board Member Hirsch: It sounds like you’re pushing me out a little bit here.
Board Member Baltay: No, I am just trying to see if it is going to… the intent was to give it a final review
and really get this done and I don’t think raising some of the issues you’ve brought up is the right thing.
4.a
Packet Pg. 229
City of Palo Alto Page 59
I am just asking is what you're feeling is about it. It’s not for me to call anyway. I don’t have any
authority to make that decision. I am just asking what you think.
Board Member Hirsch: I’ll remain on the committee.
Board Member Baltay: Okay. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I appreciate that.
Chair Thompson: Anybody else want to speak to the motion? Hearing nothing…
Vice Chair Lee: I just have a question. Would it be going back to the ad hoc committee after it goes to
Planning Commission or no? Per our comments today, it would go back to the ad hoc committee? I
don’t know what our process is.
Ms. Gerhardt: The text changes I believe the consultants can do fairly quickly. The diagram changes
might take a little bit longer. Chris, how long for diagram changes?
Mr. Sensenig: If the intent is to have an option where we are drawing elevations and sections, then I
think it will be like the first week of May at the earliest.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. The first week of May would be after the Planning Commission hearing but it would
be before Council.
Vice Chair Lee: I see. I just wondered what the steps would be.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s do a vote.
Aye: Baltay, Lee, Lew, Thompson (4)
No: Hirsch (1)
MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-1.
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
4. 656 Lytton Avenue [19PLN-00040]: Staff Level Ad Hoc Approval Memo from March 4, 2021
Chair Thompson: Okay. I think we can keep moving on. We’ve got Board Member’s questions,
comments, announcements. I know that we skipped the NVCAP. We have something before that. It’s
the 656 Lytton. That’s just to notify everybody that we have the memo of what was discussed at the ad
hoc committee in our packet. I don’t know if there is anything else to discuss with that one.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. For 656 Lytton, normally we would put these final memos in with the minutes. We
don’t have minutes, therefore it is in this announcement location. Because it is an ad hoc committee it
does not need to be voted on. It’s just for information.
5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates –
Boardmember Lew
Chair Thompson: Great. Thanks. The NVCAP update.
Board Member Lew: For staff, we didn’t discuss the height transitions issue.
Ms. Gerhardt: Oh yeah.
Chair Thompson: We didn’t.
4.a
Packet Pg. 230
City of Palo Alto Page 60
Ms. Gerhardt: We did not. Thank you for that.
Board Member Lew: I actually think that is more important that the objective standards after thinking
about it.
Chair Thompson: Is that a separate change to vote on?
Ms. Gerhardt: It is part of the objective standards overall project. It is separate from 18.24 but it is part
of the whole project. I think we are running on stamina and that is what I am wondering about. We do
have a meeting on 04/15. I don’t know if Jean would be available on 04/15. If we kept it to a very
limited discussion on just the height transition maybe we could fit it in. Would you be available, Jean?
Ms. Eisberg: Yes.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Maybe if we just did that first and we try to keep it very focused.
Chair Thompson: Okay. That sounds good.
Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. We just made a motion on objective standards. Maybe we need to reopen that
and make a slight change to that motion saying that the height transition would continue.
Chair Thompson: Yes.
Ms. Eisberg: Just to clarify, the height transition is not part of the new chapter 18.24 that the motion
was made on.
Ms. Gerhardt: True. Actually, we don’t need a motion on it because it is a little out of the purview of the
ARB. It is more that we wanted the ARB to discuss and we would like to hear the perspective of
architects. We can leave the motion as is and it would be a discussion on 04/15 because there wouldn’t
even need to be a motion on 04/15. It is just a discussion. We can do it like that, then.
Chair Thompson: That works.
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you.
Chair Thompson: Thanks for bringing that up, Alex. NVCAP update.
Board Member Lew: I am looking at my old notes. (Inaudible) and it ultimately passed on a 4-2 vote
with some modifications. It is going to the Council sometime soon. I think around April or May. That is
all that I have got on that item.
Chair Thompson: Okay. Thank you. There was a request to ask about the status of 4260 El Camino.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I believe Board Member Baltay asked for a readout on this, which is very acceptable.
We do normally do decision letters within five days of the ARB’s recommendation. We absolutely took
the ARB’s recommendation of denial seriously. We had a conversation with the property owner soon
after the public hearing just so that they understood what had happened at the hearing. There was a
request from the property owner to give them an additional chance to make some significant changes.
The Director at this moment is honoring that limited request, giving them two weeks to see what they
can come up with. There have been no promises of any sort, other than we will give them two weeks to
see if they can make some significant changes. Once we receive those revisions, then there will be more
discussion and a decision made of where to go from there.
Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments?
4.a
Packet Pg. 231
City of Palo Alto Page 61
Board Member Baltay: If I may, what I am hearing, Jodie, is that the Director did not follow up on our
recommendation regarding 4260.
Ms. Gerhardt: The Director…
Board Member Baltay: It’s not a policy; it’s a city law that the Director has to answer within five days
following our recommendation or not. The fact that he did not is exactly that. I just want to be clear for
the records that what I am hearing is that the Director is not taking the recommendation of the ARB on
this issue.
Ms. Gerhardt: I wouldn’t characterize it in that way. The property owner asked for some additional time
and the Director agreed to give additional time and not adhere to that five days. The Director has not
made a decision on this project one way or the other.
Board Member Baltay: It is in black and white in the city law that the Director has to make a decision
within five days. It’s not optional. What am I missing?
Vice Chair Lee: May I ask, on a minor application if it is denied it always goes to the Director then for
direction? Is that standard? I just wasn’t sure?
(Crosstalk)
Ms. Gerhardt: Once a decision is made on a project like this, the property owner would have the ability
to appeal it to Council.
Board Member Baltay: That’s right. That’s their recourse or the Director can overrule us. That’s his
prerogative. I just want to understand if that is really what is happening.
Ms. Gerhardt: The Director has made no decision at this time.
Board Member Baltay: Okay, thanks, Jodie. That’s all I wanted to hear. Thank you, Osma.
Chair Thompson: Thank you. Anything else, Board Members? Questions? Comments? No, all right.
We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody, for all of your hard work. I appreciate you staying late.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you, everyone.
Adjournment
4.a
Packet Pg. 232
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 12188)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 5/6/2021
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 233 University Avenue: Ad Hoc Review of Benches
Title: 233 University Avenue [18PLN-00344]: Ad Hoc Committee
Review of Two Benches. Boardmembers Baltay and Lew will
preside. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From CEQA per
Guideline Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District:
CD-C (GF)(P) (Commercial Downtown Community with Ground
Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Combining Districts). For More
Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at
Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board Ad Hoc Committee take the following
action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction, or
2. Confirm the revised project meets the full ARB’s direction and recommend the Director
consider the Conditions of Approval to be satisfied.
Background
On June 4, 2019, the Director of Planning and Development Services approved the subject
project, the seismic rehabilitation of the existing single-story structure and addition of a second
story for office use as well as a rooftop terrace. At the Board’s recommendation, staff-imposed
Condition of Approval #6, requiring that certain project elements to return to the ARB Ad Hoc
Committee for review. This report summarizes the condition of approval and the applicant’s
response to the requirement.
Links to the ARB’s May 2, 2019 hearing
Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70973
Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74510
Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-522019/
5
Packet Pg. 233
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
Discussion/Analysis
Condition of Approval #6 states: “Provide at least two benches along the Ramona or University
frontage within the vicinity of the project site in order to improve the pedestrian environment
within this area. Benches may be within the private property or within the public right-of-way.
Any benches placed within the public right-of-way must be located and designed to the
satisfaction of Public Works Engineering, the Office of Transportation, and the Director of
Planning. Benches may include traditional benches or other seating areas built into the design
of the building such as seating areas built into windows or planters.”
Applicant’s Response:
The project plans in Attachment A show two benches, one within the public right-of-way
at the corner of Ramona and University and one built into the façade at the rear of the
building on the Ramona Avenue frontage. A rendering of the built-in window seat bench
is provided and pictures of the proposed bench within the public right-of-way are
provided.
Staff Analysis:
Staff believes that the proposed benches meet the requirements of the condition of
approval. The bench proposed within the public right-of-way is the preferred bench
design, per the request of Public Works Operations staff. The bench within the public
right-of-way complies with the three-foot setback requirement from the curb, per Office
of Transportation requirements, and maintains at least a five-foot right-of-way along
Ramona Street per Public Works requirements.
The Ad Hoc Committee is encouraged to affirm that the proposed revisions meet Approval
Condition #6. Otherwise, the Committee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if
the submittal requires further refinement.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planer Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575
Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Project Plans (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
5
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment A
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Ad Hoc Committee members. During Shelter-
in-Place, project plans are only available online.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “233 University” 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-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/233-University-
Avenue-18PLN-00344-Ad-Hoc-Committee
5.a
Packet Pg. 235