HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 396-06TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:PLANNING &
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 CMR: 396:06
SUBJECT: 195 PAGE MILL ROAD, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 PARK
BOULEVARD [05PLN-00281]: CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO
SCHEDULE AN APPEAL BY COURTHOUSE PLAZA COMPANY OF THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S DENIAL
OF A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STORY BUILDING TO
INCLUDE 50,467 SQUARE FEET FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND 104,971 SQUARE FEET FOR TWO
FLOORS OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS TOTALING 84 UNITS, PLUS A
SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR DESIGN
ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
BUILDING HEIGHT, ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE AND REAR DAYLIGHT
PLANE, REDUCE THE FRONT AND STREET SIDE SETBACKS AND
INCREASE THE LOT COVERAGE.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Citv Council decline to hear the appeal by Courthouse Plaza
Company and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision
to deny the Major Architectural Review Board application as outlined in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
The City’s streamlined review process, including the Architectural Review procedures,
provides for a City Council "call up". of appeals. If the Director’s decision is appealed,
the project is sent to Council on the consent calendar. In the case of Architectural
Review applications, three Council Member votes are required to remove the project
from the consent calendar. The Council’s options under Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section (PAMC) 18.77.070(f) are as follows:
1.Adopt the decision of the Director on t.he Consent Calendar; or
2.Upon the motion, second and affirmative vote of three Council Members, remove
the item from the Consent Calendar.
CMR: 396:06 Page 1 of 6
Should the matter be removed from the Consent Calendar, the Council then has two
options:
1.The Council may discuss the appeal and adopt findings and take action on the
appeal based upon the evidence presented at the hearing of the Architectural
Review Board; or
2.The Council may set the matter for a new public hearing at a future date,
following which the Council shall adopt findings and take action on the
application.
Once removed from the Consent Calendar, either of the above two options may be
decided by a majority vote of the Council. Staff notes that California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review and conditions of approval have not been prepared for this
project, so any affirmative action should include direction to staff to prepare these
documents prior to final approval.
Project Description
The project would include the demolition of all existing structures on site, which include
vacant corrugated metal and concrete buildings, and .the construction of a 157,387 square
foot, three-story, residential apartment and research and development (R&D) building
with at grade parking and one level of below grade parking, on an approximately 2.5 acre
parcel. The 50,467 square foot first floor would be dedicated for R&D space. Eighty-
four (84) rental apartments totaling 104,971 square feet would be located on the upper
two floors.
The ARB formally reviewed the project on June 1, 2006 and continued the project to a
date uncertain to allow the applicant sufficient time to respond to issues raised by the
Board. On September 7, 2006, the ARB reviewed the applicant’s proposed changes and
recommended approval of the project, including the requested Design Enhancement
Exceptions. (DEE’s), to the Director. On September 15, 2006, a written Director’s
decision was issued denying the project as (1) the proposed mix of uses are not permitted
in the General Manufacturing (GM) zone district, (2) the project exceeds the allowable
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permissible within the GM zone district, and (3) the Design
Enhancement Exception findings cannot be made for the requested exceptions. A copy of
this decision is included as Attachment A. On September 28, 2006, an appeal was
formally filed by Courthouse Plaza Company. The letter of appeal is included as
Attachment B.
The applicant requested DEE’s for specific elements of the project. These included
requests to exceed the maximum allowable building height, to encroach into the side and
rear yard daylight plane, to reduce the front and street side yard setbacks, and to increase
the maximum allowable lot coverage. A table showing the requested exceptions is
included as Attachment F.
CMR: 396:06 Page 2 of 6
DISCUSSION
The applicant’s appeal is based on the zoning history of the site, the City’s designation of
the site for housing, on State housing law, and on the applicant’s objections to Pedestrian
and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District zoning requirements.
Each of these issues is addressed below:
Zoning Compliance
This project was formally submitted for ARB review on August 4, 2005. At that time,
the GM(B) (General Manufacturing) Combining District zone development standards
were in effect. Even under the original GM(B) zoning, the proposed project was not in
compliance with the standards of that zoning designation. The GM(B) zone included
multi-family residential and mixed-use as permitted uses but restricted the allowable
floor area ratio to .50:1. On October 11, 2005, the City Council passed a resolution
removing the "B" overlay from the GM zone district and removed all housing and mixed-
use (residential and nonresidential) development as permitted uses. Because this project
had been submitted for ARB review prior to the changes adopted by the Council, the
Council specifically exempted this project from the changes, allowing it to proceed
through the review process under the GM(B) development standards. The current site
zoning is GM and the applicant chose to submit the project for ARB review pursuant to
the GM zoning.
The proposed project does not, however, comply with zoning requirements for the GM
zone, since residential .(including mixed use) is not allowed in the GM zone. Also, the
maximum allowable FAR in the GM zone is 0.5, as compared to the 1.5 FAR proposed.
The applicant has argued that residential must be allowed on the site, since it is
designated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the City’s Housing Element. While the City
Attorney concurs, there are currently no standards for allowing mixed use in.the GM
zone. Attachment F compares the proposed project to the standards in effect (using the
RM-30 zone for the residential component) for mixed use in the GM zone prior to
Council action to delete residential uses in October of 2005. Several areas of.
noncompliance with zoning under that scenario are identified in Attachment F.
Housing Sites Inventory
The Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes a Housing Sites
Inventory identifying potential housing sites most suitable and likely to be developed for
residential purposes. Included on this list is a 3.92 acre site, which includes the portion
of Page Mill Road north of Park Boulevard (potential public safety building site), and a
portion of the subject property. The anticipated zoning of these parcels was RM-40 with a
combined dwelling unit yield of 120 units.
The applicant’s project includes three parcels, 195 Page Mill Road (APN# 132-32-003),
2825/2865/2873/2891 Park Boulevard (APN# 132-32-004) and 2901 Park Boulevard
(APN# 132-32-005) for a total of 2.41 acres. Of these three parcels, the approximately
.81 acre parcel at 2901 Park Boulevard is not on the Housing Sites Inventory. It is
unclear whether housing would be allowed on this portion of the site, but staff believes
that it may be appropriate based on an earlier (2004) City-initiated rezoning to RM-40,
CMR: 396:06 Page 3 of 6
which was never adopted. The remaining two parcels that are on the Housing Sites
Inventory List are a total of approximately 1.56 acres, which would yield 62 .dwelling
units under RM-40 zoning regulations.
Housing Law (Senate Bill 1818)
The applicant has requested a concession under SB 1818. Senate Bill 1818 amended the
State density bonus program and became effective on January 1, 2005. The relatively
new law requires cities to offer incentives or concessions to encourage the construction of
affordable housing (allowances for mixed use, increased FAR or height, reductions in
parking, setbacks, open space; etc.) based on the percentage of affordable units in a
development. The law specifies that:
One incentive or concession is to be granted for projects with at least 10 percent
of the total units for lower income households;
Two incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least
20 percent of the total units for lower income households;
Three incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least
30 percent of the total units for lower income households.
The project would include 17% of the total residential units as below market rate (BMR)
units. Given the provisions of SB 1818, the applicant may be eligible for one concession
based on the number of affordable housing units proposed. However, the City of Palo
Alto (as well as most cities), has not adopted a policy or program to identify what
concessions or incentives are appropriate and the level of discretion available to the City
upon review. The applicant’s request for concessions under SB 1818 is not, in staff’s
estimation, sufficient to support the project under SB 1818, particularly since at least two
concessions (mixed use, FAR, and setbacks/daylight plane exceptions) would be needed.
SB 1818 also allows a city to require financial information.and analysis to demonstrate
that the concessions are needed to provide for the affordable units. The applicant has
provided an analysis that lacks specific comparable costs and revenues, as well as a
capitalized income/loss stream for the project. Staff recommends that no project be
approved under SB 1818 without the Council’s review of the project.
Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the recently approved PTOD
Combining District. Staff has recommended that the applicant revise the project to
comply with the PTOD criteria, which would accommodate the residential density, but
would reduce the non-residential portion of the projectby half. The intent of the PTOD
isto foster densities and facilities that support concepts such as the use of public
transportation, streetscape design elements that are attractive to pedestrians and
bicyclists, and project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the
PTOD overlay area. When the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended
approval of the PTOD, the Commissioners expressed their expectation that this project
would conform to the PTOD standards. Attachment G compares the project to the
standards adopted by the Council for the PTOD zoning.
CMR: 396:06 Page 4 of 6
On July 24, 2006, the City Council adopted, on first reading, the recommended PTOD
Combining District and criteria for context-based design. Second reading of the
ordinance occurred on September 11, 2006, and the ordinance became effective on
October 11, 2006. On September 11, 2006, the City Council directed staff to initiate
PTOD zoning for the subject property. The Planning and Transportation Commission was
scheduled to consider the rezoning on October 11, 2006, and Council consideration of the
zoning is tentatively set for November 13, 2006.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed project will generate additional General Fund revenues in the form of
development impact fees and additional property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes.
One-time development impact fees are estimated at $659,400. Additional annual
revenues would include property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes.
First, the owner estimates that after the improvements are complete, the property will be
valued at $50 million or $40 million more than its 2006 assessed value. This represents a
$36,000 increase in annual City property tax revenues. Furthermore, the residents of the
property, along with the employees in the Research and Development portions of the
building, are expected to make purchases that will add in the range of $14,000 to $16,000
in annual sales tax revenues, as well as $12,000 to $14,000 in additional utility user tax
revenues to City coffers. That brings the total annual revenue impact to between $62,000
and $66,000.
On the expenditure side, the project would create 84 new residential units - with a
combined total of 125 bedrooms - to the City housing stock. This will create new
demands for City services such as Community Services, Planning, Police and Fire.
Development impact fees for Community Services and the Library departments are
designed to cover the incremental facility needs of the new residents. Generally, service
fees in Community Services and Planning are designed to recoup operating expenses
associated with, for example, the delivery of classes, sports programs, plan reviews, and
project permits. Police and Fire services to the Palo Alto community, however, are paid
by the General Fund (GF). Although the incremental impacts of this project alone are not
expected to require additional GF staffing, when all projects under consideration, such as
this project, 901 San Antonio, and Hyatt Rickey’s, come on line, the cumulative impact
may require additional staffing for services.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study was prepared for this project but was not circulated, as the staff
recommendation to the Architectural Review Board was for denial of the project based
upon the project’s deficiencies with respect to the existing zoning of the property. If the
Council determines that the project should be scheduled for a public hearing, staff should
also be directed to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to final Council action.
CMR: 396:06 Page 5 of 6
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Senior Planner
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
~RRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
No
C°
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Director’s Denial letter dated September 15, 2006.
Appeal letter submitted by Courthouse Plaza Company, dated September 27,
2006.
Location map of subject property.
Letters from the applicant.
Project conformance with GM and RM-30 District Regulations (prepared by
staff).
Project conformance with the California Avenue PTOD (prepared by staff).
PTOD Ordinance (PAMC 18.66).
Verbatim minutes of the September 7, 2006 ARB meeting.
Major ARB staff report dated June 1, 2006 (without attachments).
Major ARB staff report dated September 7, 2006 (without attachments).
Project Plans (Council Members Only).
COURTESY COPIES:
Hoover Associates
Courthouse Plaza Company
James Janz
Suzanne Bayley
CMR: 396:06 Page 6 of 6
September 15, 2006
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Harold Hohbach
Court House Plaza Company
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
Subject:195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard
[05PLN-001751
Dear Mr. Hohbach:
On Thursday, September 7, 2006, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the above
referenced application and recommended approval with conditions to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment. However, the Director of Planning and Community
Environment cannot approve the application because (1) the proposed mix of uses are not
permitted in the General Manufacturing (GM) zone district, (2) the project exceeds the
allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permissible within the GM zone district, and (3) the
Design Enhancement Exception findings cannot be made for the requested exceptions from
code regulations related to height, daylight plane, setbacks, and lot coverage.
In addition, the request for concessions under Senate Bill (SB) 1818 is not, in staff’s
estimation, complete or sufficient to support the proj ect under SB 1818. The request does not
provide detailed economic justification that the requested mixed use, FAR and DEE’s are
necessary to provide the affordable housing units. Determination of the adequacy of the
supporting financial analysis is a maj or policy interpretation that should be considered by the
City Council prior to application of SB 1818 to a specific site in-the City of Palo Alto.
This Director’s decision shallbecome final fourteen calendar (14) days following the date of
this letter, unless an appeal is filed pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.78. If an appeal is
received, the decision of the Director will be reviewed by the City Council within 30 days of
receipt of the appeal.
Should you have any questions regarding this major ARB action, please contact Christopher
Riordan at (650) 329-2149 or chris.riordan@cityofpaloalto.org.
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
Attachment B
CITY OF_PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT*
~,’ I’IUL
For appeals of final decisions on Architectural Review Board and Home Improvement Exception applications (rendered after public
r~earing} this appeal form shall be completed and submitted by appellant within fourtee~ days from date of the Director’s decision.
Appeals of final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered after public hearing) must be submitted within ten days of the
Director’s decision. Complete form, the current fee and a letter stating reasons for the appeal shall be submitted to front desk staff
of the Planning Division, 5~ floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, except for 980 Fridays when City Hall is closed, when these
items shall be submitted to Planning staff at the Development Center. 265 Hamilton Avenue (glass storefront across from City
Hall on the corner of Bryant and Hamilton).
* Director of Planning includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning O~cial
Appeal Application No. 0
NameofAppellant Court House Plaza
Address 29 I nwery r)riw
Skeet
Company
Receipt No. ~"-i
Phone (65(J} 322-8242
Ath~rtnn: CA 940?7
Cily ZIP
LOCATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO APPEAE:
Street Address 195 Paqe Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873.,
Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant)
¯ Property Owner’s Address -.-~ ~l~,1,3~_.
Street
2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard
City ZIP
The deci~# o[jhe Director of Planning and Community Environment dated September 15
wherebylheapplicalion Q~=,4~4~}=~5 by Court House Plaza Company
(file number) (original project applicant)
20 06
was dpnied
(approvedldenied)
Date: 9/15/06
,isherebyappealed~rthereasonsstatedintheattachedletter(induplicate)
Court House Plaza Compan~ ~’/
Hohbach Enterprises, Inc, ,~Z/. z~.~/’c-~
SignatureofAppellant General Partner ’ :/"k/°-’~"~"" "-"-
Harold C. Hohbach, President
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved Denied __
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Denied
SUBMITTAL REQUIREM ENTS SATISFIED:
1.Letter stating reasons for appeal
2.Fee (currently $151;,00)~
Received by:,
Court House Plaza Company
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
Phone 650/322-8242
Fax 650/853-0325
September 27, 2006
September
1999
November
1999
January
2000
February
200 to
November
2005
Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto.
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re:Park Plaza Project; 195 Page Mill Road /
2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 and 2901 Park Boulevard
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is being submitted by Court House Plaza Company (CHP) to state its
reasons for appeal.
I.BACKGROUND
A. Acquisition of Property
CHP was advised by its real estate broker, Marcus Wood, inSeptember of 1999
of Parcel #132-32-004 (2825, 2865, 2873 and 2891 Park Boulevard) coming onto the
market. CHP was interested in the property because it was close to other property CHP
owned. The property was coming onto the market because Mercer Processing Inc. had
decided to move its freeze drying operations tO a facility in Modesto, California.
CHP, on November 12, 1999, with its real estate broker, Marcus Wood, met wkh
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator, and advised her of CI-IP’s plans to build a mixed-use
project with a first level of research and development and residential levels above. On
being assured that the City would welcome such a project to replace the very old
existing warehouses, CHP proceeded to purchase the property. On January 23, 2000,
CHP toured the site with Nancy Lytel, then on the City Council, and was advised that
she believed CI-IP should proceed with the mixed-use project. She had been a proponent
to establish a redevelopment district to force replacement of the old warehouses.
Because of the difficulty of developing this Parcel 132-32-004 by itself, since
old buildings were on each side, 195 Page Mill on one side and 2901 Park Boulevard on
the other, CI-IP contemplated purchasing those and adjacent parcel 132-32-050 and to do
a lot-line adjustment to square up the site.
MG2955,DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 2
£)ecernber
2003 to
August
2004
September
2004
October
2004 to
February
2005
CHP arranged a meeting with Ed Gawf, Chief Planner, on February 22, 2000 and
met with him and Lisa Grote and with owners Sharon Rupp of Akins Body Shop at
2901 Park Boulevard and Steve Klee and Tony Persutti of Stanford European at 3045
Park Boulevard to discuss the Park Plaza mixed use concept and possible land
acquisition from Akins Body Shop and possible lot line adjustments.
On February 23, 2000, CHP contacted Union Pacific about acquisition of Parcel
132-32-050 to make feasible a lot line adjustment and thereafter acquired that parcel.
CHP thereafter acquired the Akins Body Shop land (Parcel 132-32-005) and arranged a
lot line adjustment with Stanford European which was recorded on November 15, 2005.
B. CHP’s First Project Proposal
CHP initially considered a planned community (PC) zone project of 50,468
square feet of research and development on a first floor to rebuild the existing
grandfathered research and development space on the site. It was also proposed to
provide 177 units of residential units on three additional floors all to be served by one
level of underground parking. It was believed that this was an ideal site for high density
housing since it was very near to the California Avenue Caltrain station. CHP filed its
zone change application to rezone from GM(B) to PC on December 16, 2003. An initial
meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) was held on August
11, 2004 for a fore: story building to include 47,115 square feet for research and
development space on a first level, a caf4 on the ground floor, and 211,167 square feet
for three additional levels of residential apartments totaling 177 units, plus a
subterranean parking garage. Despite the fact that the Project would provide much-
needed rental housing, the P&TC denied the zone change application because it was too
large and out of scale. The City Council in a7 to 2 vote on September 27, 2004 also
denied the application, without prejudice, also on the ground that the project was too
large.
C. CHP’s Second Project Proposal
1. An "In-The-Box" Application
CHP thereafter decided to down-size the project to an in-the-box
application so that it would be unnecessary to ask for a PC and eliminate the need to go
to the P&TC and the City Council. The "in-the-box" application in the GM(B) zone
would only require Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval. This Project consisted
of 50,468 square feet of research and development on a first floor and 84 units of
residential on the second and third floors, with one level ofundergronnd parking.
Hoover Associates proceeded with the new down-sized design.
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 3
February
2005 to
April 2005
June
2005
March
2005 toJuly 2005
August
2005 to
September
2005
October
2005
2. The Text Amendment
After consultation with staff on the FAR for the GM(B) zone starting in
February 2005, it was still staffs opinion that the GM(B) zone, even though it addressed
only commercial use having an FAR of 0.5, and was silent on residential and mixed use
in that zone, that the FAR for zoning a mixed use could not exceed 0.5 CHP. In
accordance with the suggestion of staff, CHP decided to pursue a text amendment which
would clarify that mixed use must have an FAR of 1 to 1 as long as the nonresidential
FAR does not exceed 0.5. The application for the zoning text amendment was filed
April 28, 2005.
Even though staff had recommended approval of the zoning text
amendment in its staff report of June 8, 2005, the P&TC denied the request for the
zoning text amendment by itself and stated that it should be taken up later in the context
of the GM Zones and all RM Zones and tabled discussion of the application of H-38 and
Government Code Section 65915 (SB 1818) to the Park Plaza site to another time.
3. Submission for Preliminary Final ARB Review
The Project was down sized, and four conceptual site and development
proposals were presented to the ARB on March 3, 2005, from which one proposal was
selected by the ARB. This selected design proposal was submitted in an application
filed on May 18, 2005 for preliminary final ARB review. The formal preliminary ARB
review took place on July 7, 2005.
Submission for Final ARB Review
An application for final ARB review was filed on August 4, 2005, Permit
No. 05PLN-00281. It was deemed incomplete in a letter from Planning Staff dated
September 1, 2005. In response, CHP submitted its letter of September 29, 2005, and
therein requested the application of SB 1818 and H-38 and a final submittal to the ARB.
5. Removal of"B" Overlay
CHP learned that the City Council was considering removal of the "B"
overlay in the GM zone which would restore the pre-existing 1.0 FAR for a mixed-use
project. In conjunction with this City Council action, use of H-38 could provide the
desired 1.5 FAR. On October 11, 2005, the City Council did in fact remove the "B"
overlay in the GM Zone (Ordinance No. 4883), but on the same date moved to prohibit
housing and mixed-use altogether in the GM zone (Ordinance No. 4884) by a vote of 5
to 4. The City Council noted that CHP’s Park Plaza Project was then pending and voted
(9 to 0) that it could proceed under the prior zoning rules.
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 4
October
2005 to
January 2005
February
2006
6. The PTOD
Shortly thereafter, staffproposed to create a Pedestrian and
Transportation Oriented District (PTOD) to provide that housing could still be placed in
an area westerly of the Caltrain tracks within a 2,000 foot radius and in the GM zone,
and particularly in areas which previously had been designated by the City as Housing
Inventory Sites. The Park Plaza site is one of those Housing Inventory Sites.
CI-IP was asked by staff to await the outcome of the establishment of the
PTOD. Staff represented to CHP, in a meeting with staffon October 31, 2005, that the
PTOD would be pursued through the P&TC and City Council by the end of January
2006. CHP could then continue its pursuit of final ARB approval of the Park Plaza
Project in the last part of January or first part of February 2006. CHP believed it could
live with this long delay because CHP would still be able to start its project and the
excavation for the underground garage in the early Spring of 2006.
Staff, rather than just pursuing the PTOD for CI-[P’s land in thePark
Plaza Project and the adjacent land at 2785 Park, enlarged the scope of the PTOD to
include the California Avenue Business District and even Frys. This resulted in
numerous protracted hearings with resulting delays. In conjunction with the PTOD,
staff retained the consulting firm of Van Meter Williams Pollack LLP and, in particular,
Rick Williams, to provide context-based designs for the PTOD. On February 2, 2006
Rick Williams -- without consultation with CHP and having knowledge of the Park
Plaza Project which was submitted for final ARB review on September 29, 2005 long
before a PTOD was being considered by staff-- proposed a context-based design aimed
specifically at the Park Plaza site which eviscerated the Park Plaza Project design.
Although it is argued that the context-based design is applicable to other parcels along
Caltrain, almost everything along Caltrain south of the California Avenue station is
already built out with relatively new buildings, such as the Danger building, except for
the vacant lot at 2785 Park Boulevard.
The context-based guidelines of Rick Williams were an apparent attempt
to appease Emerson Street residents who are approximately 500 feet from the Park Plaza
site. Within this distance of approximately 500 feet are the 110 feet of CalTrain right-
of-way, the 100 feet wide Alma Street right-of-way, and 135 feet of RM-30 housing.
The Rick Williams context-based guidelines proposed that daylight plane requirement of
R-1 and R-2 adjacencies be applied to the CalTrain adjacency, with the daylight plane
having an initial height of 16 feet and a 45 degree angle. The context-based guidelines
also proposed arbitrary setbacks and building separations without ever expressing any
concern about residents of the Project and their greatly increased exposure to Caltrain
noise by these proposed guidelines. The Rick Williams context-based guidelines also
proposed a maximum non-residential FAR cap of 0.35 which was subsequently reduced
to 0.25 even though the Park Plaza site has nearly 0.5 FAR of grandfathered R&D.
MG2955.DOC;I.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 5
7. CHP’s Decision to Proceed Without the PTOD.
March
2006
At this turn of events, with the PTOD context based design concepts
ignoring the already designed Park Plaza Project, and in addition to proposing
elimination of 50% of the Park Plaza grandfathered R&D, and because of the long time
delay occurring with respect to obtaining enactment of the PTOD, CHP believed it had
no choice but to abandon using the PTOD and to proceed under the new existing GM
zoning for the Park Plaza site. CI-IP also decided to use one concession under SB 1818,
to apply RM 40 with 1.0 FAR housing to the 0.5 FAR research and development in the
GM zone to achieve the desired FAR of 1.5 for the Park Plaza Project. CHP, on March
17, 2006, submitted a letter to staff requesting a fmal submittal to the ARB as originally
requested in its letter of September 29, 2005.
8. Staffs Reversal of Position
March
2006 to
May 2006
At a meeting on March 13, 2006 between CHP (Harold Hohbach and
architect Richard Campbell of Hoover Associates) and City (Donald Larkin, City
Attorney’s Office, Amy French and Chris Riordan of Planning Staff), Mr. Larkin stated
that since the "B" overlay had been removed, the FAR of 1 to 1 in the GM zone for
mixed use was again in place. He advised that CHP still needed SB 1818 and H-38 to
achieve an FAR of 1.5. He also advised that with a lot coverage of less than 50%,
Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) could be used for lot coverage, as well as for
daylight planes and setbacks. He implied that there was staff approval for this approach.
May 4, 2006 was set as a target date for the final ARB hearing. CHP submitted its letter
of March 17, 2006 to Planning to supplement its letter of September 29, 2005 to
implement these suggestions of Mr. Larkin and requesting final ARB approval.
Thereafter, the date for final ARB approval was set for June 1, 2006..
On May 16, 2006, Harold Hohbach was called by Chris Riordan to meet
with Amy French at 11 a.m. at City Hall on May 17, 2006. At this meeting with Amy
French and Chris Riordan, Mr. Hohbach was advised for the first time in over a year of
design and planning, that staff was recommending that the ARB disapprove the Project
because it did not meet PTOD guidelines. No other explanation was given for the staffs
change of position. Mr. Hohbach argued that the PTOD was still not enacted and also
was not applicable because CHP was applying to the ARB under existing zoning. Mr.
Hohbach, on behalf of CHP, immediately requested a meeting with Steve Emslie and
Don Larkin which was arranged for 3 P.M. the next day, May 18, 2006.
CHP that afternoon sought legal counsel (a real estate attorney, and past
mayor and still council member of the Town of Atherton), one, James Janz of
Tomlinson Zisko LLP of Palo Alto, and another, Jeffrey P. Widman (a real estate
litigation lawyer) of San Jose, California. After consultation with these lawyers that
afternoon, it was decided that James Janz would attend the meeting on behalf of CHP on
May 18, 2006.
MG2955oDOC;1.1
Membersof the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 6
May 2006
June 2006
9. The Meeting Of May 18, 2006
At the scheduled time of 3:00 P.M. on May 18, 2006, CHP, represented
by Harold Hohbach, Richard Campbell and James Janz, met with Donald Larkin, Steve
Emslie, Amy French and Chris Riordan, representing the City. Stafftook the position it
would recommend denial ofthe Park Plaza Project to the ARB because Ordinance No.
4884, prohibiting housing in the GM zone and for the first time at this meeting, stated
that it also prohibits mixed-use.
10. Legal Position of CHP for the June 1, 2006 ARB Hearing.
CHP, through its real estate attorney James Janz, submitted his letter of
May 30, 2006 to the ARB, and to Steve Emslie and Donald Larkin. It addressed issues
arising with respect to the scheduled June 1, 2006 ARB hearing. The letter in particular
addresses issues raised bythe staff report for the June 1, 2006 ARB hearing
recommending rejection of the Project.
STAFF GROUND: The Project does not conform to the
PTOD development standards currently under review. JANZ
RESPONSE: The PTOD had not been enacted and cannot be
used by staff as a ground for rejection.
STAFF GROUND: The Project exceeds the FAR for the
GM(B) zone. JANZ RFSPONSE: CHP in its pursuit of ARB
approval of its Project learned that the "B" overlay was to be
removed by City Council (which it did on October 11, 2005)
returning the FAR to the prior 1 to 1 which, with the use of H-
38, gives the Project the desired 1.5 FAR.
Although the staffreport to the ARB for the June 1, 2006 meeting did not
take the position that a mixed-use housing development was not now permitted on a GM
site, this position was made in the aforementioned meeting of May 18, 2006 with staff.
Janz also pointed out that staff agreed, and Larkin concurred, that housing only would
be permitted on the Project site using SB 1818 and H-38 using RM-40 for the housing
criteria and that this was particularly true since the Project site is in the City’s Housing
Site Inventory.
Janz also pointed out, and Larkin agreed, that there was an anomaly in
staff agreeing that SB 1818 trumped restrictions on housing alone in the GM zone but
not the restriction on a mixed-use housing development. Larkin stated that he would
reconsider the staffs conclusion on mixed use.
Janz also pointed out that the Park Plaza Project, by retaining the existing
research and development, is not displacing research and development in the GM zone,
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 7
thus achieving the desire of the City Council as expressed in its October 11, 2005
decision. In addition, the Park Plaza Project is adding housing to achieve the objective
of SB 1818 to provide more Below Market Rate (BMR) housing. Thus, the City’s desire
to retain its GM base and the State’s mandate that the City must grant density bonuses
for BMR housing are both met by the Park Plaza Project.
Janz then requested that staffrescind its recommendation that the Park
Plaza Project be denied so that the ARB could undertake its deliberations without this
cloud on zoning issues overhanging it.
Widman, in his letter of May 31, 2006 to Donald Larkin, Deputy City
Attorney, also responded to the staff report for the June 1, 2006ARB hearing. He
pointed out that a denial cannot be based on the PTOD which had not been adopted. He
also pointed out that rejection on the ground that the Project exceeds the FAR
permissible under the GM(B) zone ignores the mandate of SB 1818. He also pointed
out that even though the City agrees that SB 1818 supersedes any language prohibiting
housing in the Park Plaza site, by the same token SB 1818 supersedes the City’s
prohibition on a mixed-use housing project ina GM zone.
11. The June 1, 2006 ARB Hearing
June 2006
Donald Larkin, for the Cky, attended the June 1, 2006 ARB hearing and
explained to the ARB that there were unresolved zoning issues vcith respect to the
Project but that the ARB should consider the Project with respect to architectural issues
which it did by giving constructive suggestions. The ARB moved to continue the
hearing to July 6, 2006 to permit CHP to implement the suggestions.
12. Legal Position of CHP After the June 1, 2006 ARB Hearing
June 2006
to July 2006
In a letter of June 23, 2006 to Larkin, Janz, on behalf of CHP reviewed
conferences held with staff and Larkin following the June 1, 2006 ARB hearing. In that
letter Janz pointed out that the Project site was a City Housing Inventory Site to which
RM-40 is applicable. Since the Project site comprises 2.41 acres, the proposed 84 units
is below the permitted 96.4 units. Applying the 15% BMR City requirement yields 13
BMR units. Use of H-38 to achieve a density bonus is not required by CHP. Under
subsection (d)(2) of Section 65915 (SB 1818) CliP is entitled to one concession since it
is providing more than 10% BMR traits. For this one concession CHP is requesting the
addition of housing with RM-40 criteria and its accompanying FAR of 1 to 1 to the non-
residential .5 FAR permitted under the GM zone to provide a combined FAR of 1.5.
The inclusion of the R&D in the mixed use of the Project since it reduces the cost of the
housing component mandates the one concession requested by CHP. See subsection
(1)(2) of Section 65915 (SB 1818).
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 8
Janz, in a memorandum to Larkin dated July 11, 2005, after meeting with
Curtis Williams, Amy French and Chris Riordan of Plarming, identifies three items that
needed his legal input.
No Mixed use is permissible and carries with it a 1 to 1 FAR with
RM-40 criteria.
No DEEs requested by CHP should be evaluated under typical
standards and not more stringent standards just because CHP
is using a concession under SB 1818.
City is estopped from excluding a portion of land added to the
Project site by alot-line adjustment from the City Housing
Inventory Site.
July 2006
13. Staff Recommendation of Denial of Park Plaza Project to ARB
Chris Riordan onbehalf of staff in his letter of July 25, 2006 to CHP
stated that staff is willing to consider allowing a mixed-use land use in a zone district
that does not permit use as the one concession for which this Park Plaza Project would
qualify based on the proposed percentage of 15% of affordable housing units citing
(1)(2) of Section 65919 (SB 1818), but to obtain approval, CI-[P would need to be
required to provide a financial analysis "demonstrating that the commercial portion of
the development is necessary to reduce the cost of the affordable housing portion of the
project."
The letter then pointed out that to support this "financial funding," staff
would have this analysis reviewed by an independent auditor.
Their letter then went on to state that staff will recommend denial of the
project when it is reviewed by the ARB for the following reasons:
The GM zoning does not include mixed-use as a permitted land use on the site
and does not allow for the proposed FAR,
The project would not provide appropriate design transitions similar to those
outlined in the PTOD zoning be in conformance with the PTOD development
standards or design guidelines.
The Design Enhancement Exception finding cannot be made.
14. Division of Staff to not Support the Park Plaza Project
A meeting was held at City Hall at 11:00 A.M. on August 9, 2006 to
discuss the status of the Park Plaza Project. Present for the City was Steve Emslie, Amy
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 9
August 2006
French, Chris Riordan and Melissa Tronquet from the City Attorney’s office and for
CHP, Richard Campbell of Hoover Associates, James Janz and Harold Hohbach. CHP
stated that it was using one concession under SB 1818 to bring RM-40 housing at 1 to 1
FAR onto the existing GM zone with its 0.5 FAR for R&D to provide a 1.5 FAR for the
Park Plaza Project and if necessary to use a second concession under SB 1818 for lot
coverage, daylight plan and setback issues. Steve Emslie then stated that staffwould not
support the project and then asked Campbell, the architect, if he would consider
removing R&D space to meet the lot coverage issue.
Thereafter there followed a discussion of the issue whether the R&D in
the Park Plaza Project reduced the cost of the housing component. CI-~ on July 31,
2006 had supplied its letter of July 29, 2006 in which it took the position that the R&D
produces a rental income of two and one-half times that of the residential and thereby
reduces the cost of the housing development to satisfy the requirement for a concession
for a mixed-use projectunder SB 1818. At the conclusion of the meeting CHP was
supplied with a copy of a letter of August 4, 2006 to staff from Susan Arpan, Manager
of Economic Development and Redevelopment, giving an analysis e fthe CHP letter of
July 29, 2006 and requesting more information. More information was supplied in
CHP’s letter of August 14, 2006.
15. CHP Response to StaffDenial
August 2006
Janz in his letter of August 10, 2006 to Larkin pointed out that CHP as
early as June 23, 2006 has used a concession under (1)(2) Section 65915 (SB 1818) for a
mixed-use Park Plaza project in the present GM zone. Janz also pointed out that staff
had previously indicated that the DEEs with respect to RM-40 zoning criteria applied to
a mixed-use could be approved by the ARB and that this should still be .the case and
should be included in the first concession.
Janz next pointed out that if necessary to obtain the DEEs, CHP had
requested a second concession to cover all of the zoning requirements of RM-40
including lot coverage, daylight planes and setbacks.
Janz then stated that CHP’s use of two concessions to resolve outstanding
zoning issues should result in staff recommending approval of the Park Plaza Project
and renders those issues non-appealable to the City Council.
16. Preparation for the September 7, 2006 ARB Hearing
September
2006
The staff report for the September 7, 2006 ARB hearing recommended
denial of the Project "because (1) the proposed mix of uses are not permitted, (2) the
project exceeds the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permissible within the GM
(General Manufacturing) zone district, and (3) the Design Enhancement Exception
findings cannot be made for the requested exceptions from code regulations on height,
MG2955.DOC;1,1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 10
September
2006
daylight plane, setbacks, and lot coverage."
The staffreport clouded the issues before the ARB by discussing zoning
compliance and referred to RM-30 zoning, the not-yet-adopted PTOD, and in addition
argued that no project should be approved under SB 1818 until the City Council adopts
a policy interpreting SB 1818.
Janz, in his letter of September 1, 2006 to the ARB responding to the
staff report, pointed out that RM-40 zoning requirements and none other applied to the
Park Plaza Project and that this was concurred in by Larkin. Janz also pointed out that
since zoning decisions were not within the responsibilities of the ARB; that it was
"wholly inappropriate and improper for staffto recommend that the ARB advise the
Planning Director to reject the project on the grounds that it was not in compliance with
zoning."
Ct-IP arranged for a meeting with staffat 4:00 P.M. on September 5, 2006
which was attended by Curtis Williams and Amy French and Donald Larkin for the City
and Harold Hohbach and Dick Campbell for CHP, at which Harold Hohbach expressed
his displeasure of the staffreport including RM-30 and PTOD criteria for disapproval of
the Project when they were not involved in the issues before the ARB. Larkin stated
that the RM-30 and PTOD could be considered as historical background and that CHP
had only asked for one concession under SB 1818 to provide housing on the GM site at
1.5 FAR if the cost of housing is reduced. Larkin suggested proceeding with the DEE
before the ARB because another concession might not be needed. Larkin after the
meeting sent an e-mail to staff which read as follows:
"In response to the objections raised by Courthouse Plaza
Company to the ARB Staff Report, please assure the Board that
discussion of the proposed findings included in "Attachment A"
to the report are within the purview of the Board. The zoning
discussion in the body of the Report was provided for
background. Discussion of specific zoning requirements is
outside of the purview 0fthe Board. The Board’s
recommendations should be limited to the architectural findings
and the DEE application.
This e-mail may be provided to the Board and members of the public."
17. The September 7, 2006 ARB Hearing
voted 5 to 0 in
for denial.
CHP made its presentation to the ARB on September 7, 2006. The ARB
favor of the Project with conditions overriding staffs recommendation
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 11
September
2006
September
2006
The conditions identified by the ARB on September 7, 2006 to be
considered by the ARB in a consent calendar included the following:
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
11.
Bringing Park Boulevard windows in the R&D space down to
street level.
Provide Park Boulevard doorways to R&D space and consider
possibility of retail.
More windows in rear fagade to promote more natural light to
hallways.
Use single colors for interior courtyard.
Reduce number of reveals in center metal panels from 3 to 2.
Remove bicycle lockers from courtyard.
Remove transformers from courtyard.
Increase size of tower to give it more prominence.
Basic primary colors do not scale up.
Provide exterior dorm lighting on Park Boulevard fagade.
Limit uses of R&D space.
More regular planting of trees along rear fa9ade.
CHP has responded to these conditions. These responses will be
considered by the ARB on its consent calendar on October 5, 2006.
The following was stated by the ARB on .September 7, 2006 with respect
to the staffs findings for denial:
Not applicable because not in a residential neighborhood.
Not applicable because not in a residential neighborhood.
Not supportable because scale of Park Plaza Project appropriate
in view of Agilent building
Not supportable because open space in conformance with
requirements.
And with respect to staffs findings on Design Enhancement Exception:
Not supportable because site is exceptional because of its
adjacency to the railroad tracks.
Not supportable because there are no compatibility issues:
Not supportable, exceptions can be combined as one.
18. Meeting with Frank Behest and Emily Harrison.
CHP on August 10, 2006 called a secretary to set up a date to meet Frank
Benest and Emily Harrison about staffs denial of the Park Plaza Project. It was found
that both would not be available until 9:30 A.M. on Friday, September 15, 2006, at City
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 12
September
2006
Hall. Hohbach on behalf of CHP started the meeting with Emily Harrison on that date
without Frank Benest because he was delayed in traffic. Unexpectedly, Steve Emslie
was present. Hohbach briefly explained the Park Plaza Project as a mixed-use project
near CalTrain. Janz then arrived at the meeting. Hohbach, using Presentation Exhibit B
(existing) from Emerson Street at street level showed that only a small part of the
Agilent building was visible and then only through a driveway opposite one of the
Emerson Street residences on the opposite side of Emerson Street. Using Presentation
Exhibit C (proposed), Hohbach showed that only a small part of the Park Plaza Project
building could be seen from the same location because it was in front of the Agilent
building as viewed from Emerson Street.
Emily Harrison commented that she did not understand why Emerson
Street residents would object to the Park Plaza Project. She then asked Steve Emslie
why he and staff were objecting to the Park Plaza Project. Steve Emslie responded that
he desired to achieve an "edge treatment along the railroad tracks."
At this time Frank Behest arrived at the meeting and Emily Harrison left
for another scheduled appointment.
Frank Behest then attempted to ascertain from Steve Emslie and CHP
where the parties have their differences. Frank Behest then adjourned the meeting and
asked to speak to Steve Emslie privately. Steve Emslie suggested prior to adjournment
that CHP consider retaining an independent consultant to confirm the financial
conclusions reached by CHP with respect to CHP’s assertion that the R&D reduces the
cost of the housing deve!opment.
19. Denial by Planning Director
The Planning Director in his letter of September 15, 2006 stated that even
though the ARB had recommended approval of the Park Plaza Project, he could not
approve the application for three reasons and also because CHP’s response did not
provide a complete or sufficient detailed economic justifications that the requested
mixed use, FAR and DEE’s are necessary to provide the affordable housing units. This
refusal to approve by the Planning Director set forth in his letter of September 15, 2006
was not filed within three days of recommendation of approval by the ARB as required
under Section 18.77.070(d)(1).
20.CHP’s Efforts to Ameliorate Concerns of Emerson Street residents and
Midtown Residents Association.
CHP and its architect, Richard Campbell, of Hoover Associates, had
numerous meetings with Emerson Street residents and Midtown residents which
included the chair and past chair of the Midtown Residents Association. Two
presentations were made at Midtown Residents Association meetings. At these two
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 13
Midtown Residents Association meetings no adverse comments were received during
the presentations of the Park Plaza Project.
As a result of these meetings, CHP negotiated with the Joint Powers
Board to obtain a 10 foot easement adjacent to Park Plaza site to make it possible for
CHP to plant coastal redwoods and Canary Island pines and shrubs in random groupings
along the rear facade to provide occasional glimpses of the rear facade to Caltrain riders.
In addition, at the request of the Chair for Midtown, CHP deleted all of the windows
facing Caltrain and Emerson Street except for four corridor windows requested by the
ARB to provide natural lighting to the side corridors of the Project. CI-IP, to provide
natural lighting to the single-loaded rear corridors, provided windows in offsets in the
rear facade facing at right angles to Caltrain and Emerson Street.
II.ISSUES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
A. Was the decision of the Planning Director timely filed within the three
day requirement of 18.77.070(d)(1) when the decision was not made until his letter of
September 15, 2006 eight days after the recommendation of the ARB made on
September 7, 2006.
B. Since CHP has chosen to utilize one concession under Subsection (1)(2)
of Government Section 65915 (SB 1818) to provide mixed use (R&D and residential)
on the current GM zoning providing 0.5 FAR for R&D and to provide RM-40 housing
at 1.0 FAR for a combined FAR of 1.5 and since the ARB in a five to zero approval of
the Park Plaza Project on September 7, 2006, does the Planning Director have the right:
1. To disapprove the CHP application without filing an appeal of the
ARB decision and thereby force CHP to make the appeal?
2.Raise issues with respect to mixed-use and FAR in the GM Zone?
3. Raise issues with respect to ARB design enhancement exemption
findings on lot coverage, daylight plane and setbacks?
4.Urge that detailed economic justification for the requested mixed
use, FAR and DEE’s is necessary to provide the affordable housing units when Section
65915 only requires that in a mixed-use development, the non-residential use "will
reduce the cost of the housing development"?
C. Since the Park Plaza Project utilizes a Palo Alto selected Housing
Inventory Site and is utilizing one concession under Section 65915 to provide RM-40
1.0 FAR housing in a GM zone having .5 FAR to provide a combined FAR of 1.5 for
the mixed use project, does anyone have the right to appeal to the City Council after a
final ARB approval of the Park Plaza Project?
MG2955.DOC;I.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 14
Ill. ARGUMENT
The argument in this letter of CHP is being augmented by a letter from James
Janz (CHP’s real estate attorney) of the same date as this letter to provide the legal basis
for the argument hereinafter set forth. Also, a letter of the same date from NAI BT
Commercial gives an independent opinion that the inclusion of a mixed-use project
which includes R&D reduces the cost of the housing development.
A. The Planning Director has lost his right to challenge the recommendation
of the ARB with respect to the Park Plaza Project because his letter of September .15,
2006 was not timely filed and therefore he is estopped from denying the Project. The
recommendation of approval of the ARB on the Park Plaza Project stands.
Under Section 18.77.070(d)(1) the Planning Director shall prepare within three
days a written decision to approve the application, approve it with conditions, or deny it
upon receipt of the recommendation of the ARB.
The ARB made its decision to approve the Park Plaza Project on September 7,
2006 as recorded in the minutes of that hearing. The Planning Director’s written
decision was not issued until September 15, 2006, eight days after the September 7,
2006 decision of the ARB and certainly not within three days as required.
The written decision of the Planning Director is therefore a nullity and the
recommendation of the ARB in its Park Plaza Project stands. The Planning Director is
estopped from denying the Project.
B. The Planning Director cannot deny approval of a recommendation of the
Project unless the disapproval is based on issues reviewable by the ARB.
The ARB on September 7, 2006 recommended approval of the Park Plaza
Project on a 5 to 0 vote. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the ARB, the Planning
Director can approve the CHP application, approve it with conditions, or deny it
[ 18.77.070(d)(1)]. The Planning Director, however, is without authority to apparently
deny the application by stating he cannot approve the application because he argues
there are unresolved zomng issues outside the purview of the ARB.
CHP submits the zoning issues were resolved prior to the September 7, 2006
ARB hearing when CHP used one concession under SB 1818 to add RM-40 housing at a
FAR of 1 to 1 to the 0.5 FAR R&D permitted under the present GM zone for the Park
Plaza site. Even if the Planning Director believes there are certain unresolved zoning
issues, he cannot use that belief to fail to approve the recommendation of the ARB on
the Park Plaza Project.
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 15
C. CHP’s decision to use one concession under SB 1818 to address zoning
issues on the Park Plaza Project having its site in the GM zone forecloses the Planning
Director and the City Council from further review of the Park Plaza Project because of
the State mandate under SB 1818.
State Law in SB 1818 mandates that the City provide a developer with density
bonus or other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing
units wkhin the developmem. CHP is entitled to one concession because k is providing
more than 10% BMRs. CHP is using that one concession to provide RM-40 housing
with its accompanying FAR of 1 to 1 on the GM zone of the Park Plaza site having a 0.5
FAR for R&D to provide a combined FAR of 1.5 to resolve the zoning issues.for the
Park Plaza Project.
Since the Park Plaza Project meets the requirements of SB 1818 and the ARB
has given its final approval on the architectural merits to the Park Plaza Project, the
Planning Director and the City Council are foreclosed on other than architectural merits
from any further review of the Park Plaza Project.
The Planning Director cannot deny approval of the recommendation of
the Park Plaza Project by the ARB with respect to its DEE findings when those findings
are properly grounded and have a sound basis.
The ARB, in its September 7, 2006 hearing, approved DEEs related to lot
coverage, daylight plane and setbacks for the Park Plaza Project because there are
exceptional circumstances applicable to the site. There is a sound basis for the ARB
decision which warrant the granting of the requested DEEs, particularly since they are of
a minor nature.
No reason was given by the Planning Director for disagreeing with the bases set
forth by the ARB.
If the Planning Director believes that these DEE issues are related to zoning
issues he is foreclosed from raising these issues under the mandate of SB 1818.
E. The Planning Director is in error when he states that it is necessary to
provide economic justification that the requested mixed use, FAR and DEEs are
necessary, to provide affordable units.
Under SB 1818 (1)(2) a concession includes approval of mixed-use development
in conjunction with a housing project if it will reduce the cost of the housing
development. The provision of R&D in the Park Plaza mixed-use project reduces the
cost of the housing development. It is self-evident that the inclusion of the R&D use
allows certain Project costs, such as land acquisition, site due diligence, and utility
connections, to be spread over two uses, thus decreasing the cost burden which would
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 16
have been borne by the housing alone. In addition, CHP has submitted data to the City
making it clear that the R&D space will rent at a higher price and cost less than housing
space and thereby the R&D greatly improves the financial feasibility of the rental
project and also reduces the cost of the housing development. At the request of the City,
CHP has obtained an independent opinion confn’ming CHP’s conclusion. However,
CHP submits that the requirement that an independent opinion as suggested by the
Planning Director is unnecessary under SB 1818.
IV.CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the ARB recommending approval
of the Park Plaza Project should be considered as final and CIJP should be permitted to
proceed to build its Project as approved by the ARB.
Proposed findings are submitted for consideration by the City Council and are
attached hereto.
Sincerely yours,
Court House Plaza Company
Hohbach Enterprises, Inc.,
General Partner
Harold C. Hohbach, President
MG2955.DOC;1.1
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 17
The Park Plaza Project is an appropriate site in Palo Alto for CHP to use one concession
under SB 1818 since CHP is providing more than 10% BMR units.
o CHP’s one concession under SB 1818 emitles CHP to provide a mixed use project on the
Project site which is zoned GM permitting 0.5 FAR for nonresidential use (i.e., R&D)
and superimposing RM-40 housing of a 1 to 1 FAR to provide a combinedFAR of 1.5.
3.The use of mixed use in the Project reduces the cost of the housing development.
The financial analysis supplied by CHP justifies the fact that the R&D component of the
mixed use reduces the cost of the housing development
The approval of the ARB of the Park Plaza Project is sanctioned and the refusal e f the
Planning Director to approve CHP’s application is overturned.
6.The DEE’s granted by the ARB on the Park Plaza Project are approved.
MG2955.DOC;1.1
lli l BT Commerc
Commercial Real Estate Ser~ces, Woddwideo
1950 University Avenue, Suite 220
Palo Alto CA 94303
tel 650 852 1200
fax 650 856 1098
www.naibtcom m ercial.com
September 27, 2006
Steve Emslie
City of Palo Alto
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
Re: Park Plaza Project, 195 Page Mill Road, 2865 Park Boulevard
I have been requested to give an independent opinion of Court House Plaza
Company’s election to use one concession under SB 1818 to overcome zoning
issues and whether Court House Plaza Company has economically justified use
of that concession.
I have been supplied with the following:
1. Steve Emslie’s letter of 9/15/2006 to CliP;
2. The pertinent potions of SB 1818;
3. CHP’s letter of July 28, 2006 to Steve Emslie;
4. Susan Arpan’s memo of August 4, 2006
5. CHP’s letter of August 14, 2006 to Susan Arpan.
As background for giving this opinion, I am a Partner in the commercial real
estate firm of NAI BT Commercial. I graduated from Stanford University in 1977
and received an MBA in Finance in 1983 from NYU. I have worked in
commercial real estate for over 20 years and as a broker in the Palo Alto area,
since 1988. I have frequently completed financial analyses of development deals
and evaluations of existing R&D and apartment projects.
I have made an independent review of CHP’s letters listed above. I have
reviewed portions of SB 1818, which states that a concession includes approval
of mixed use zoning in conjunction with a housing project, if it "will reduce the
cost of the housing development." I have also reviewed your letter of September
15, 2006 in which you state that it is necessary to "provide detailed economic
justification that the requested mixed use, FAR and DEEs are necessary to
provide the affordable housing units"
Build on the power of our network.TM Over 300 offices worldwide.
As can be learned from the data submitted by CHP in its two letters, the R&D
space will cost less to build than the residential space and will generate more
income per.square foot than the residential. This brings me to the same
conclusion that the inclusion of the R&D in the mixed-use project reduces the
cost of the housing component and clearly meets the requirements for CliP’s
request for one concession.
Even using your criteria set forth in your letter of September 15, 2006 (which I do
not believe is justified under SB1818) all three are necessary to provide the
affordable housing units. This is particularly true since this is a proposed rental
project.
The project cannot be economically justified by only building rental apartments.
By adding R&D in a mixed use project for an additional investment of
approximately $6.8 million for the shell and another $1.5 million for improvements
returns an additional $1.2 million. This equates to a 14.5% return on the R&D
component versus a return of 1.4% ($671,663/$46,717,719)for the housing
component alone. Blending the two returns gives a return of 3.09% which.is still
too low and makes it clear that all of the items listed by you in your September
15, 2006 letter are required by CHP. The inclusion of the BMRs in the housing at
the same cost to build but at substantially less rent only aggravates the overall
return which is inadequate.
In conclusion, the concession requested by CliP is supported by the detailed
economic justification supplied by CliP. The CHP economic justification clearly
shows that the mixed-use project clearly reduces the cost of the housing
development and therefore meets the requirement for the granting of the
concession requested. The CliP economic justification also meets your criteria
(not found in SB1818) that the requested mixed use, FAR and DEEs are
necessary to provide the affordable housing units.
Sincerely,
~s Wood
BT Commercial
TOMLINSON
Z IS KO~v
James R. Janz
Telephone: (650) 325-8666, ext, 4117
Email: jjanz@tzllp.com
Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
September 27, 2006
RECEIVED
SEP 2 8 2006
DEPARTMEN’i" OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Park Plaza Project; 195 Page Mill Road /
2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 and 2901 Park Boulevard
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As you know, Courthouse Plaza Company ("CHP"), the owner of the subject property,
has been working on the development of this site since December 2003 (parcel acquisition
actually began in 1999). During that time, the project has undergone several iterations, starting
with a planned community ("PC") project which was rejected because it was deemed to be too
massive for the site. The project was subsequently down sized and four conceptual site designs
were presented to the Architectural Review Board, which selected one proposal for development.
1. Brief History.
For the entire time the project has been under discussion with staff, CHP has diligently
attempted to comply with staff recommendations. In an effort to produce an "in-the-box"
application, with staffs urging, CHP has pursued (1) atext amendment to the zoning code to
clear up a perceived error, (2) the removal of the "B" overlay in the existing GM zone, and
finally, (3) pursuit of a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development District ("PTOD") for the
area including the site. The first two initiatives were not successful in achieving the .goal, and
the PTOD process became a drawn out procedure incorporating design guidelines antithetical to
the design selected by the ARB and the resulting design of the Park Plaza Project ("Project")
pursued by the developer. As a result, CHP developed the current proposal, which is appropriate
in scale and complimentary to the area. The resulting Project provides 84 units of rental
residential housing and 50,468 square feet ofgrandfathered R&D space for City. Thus, the Park
Plaza Project meets the goals of the City and its Comprehensive Plan by providing residential
units as proposed on the City’s.Housing Sites Inventory and, in addition, retaining R&D space
provided for in the present GM zone. In addition, 13 units (or 15% of the units) are below
market rate ("BMR") units.
200 PAGE MILL ROAD
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94306
TELEPHONE 650.325~8666
FACSIMILE 650.324.1808
MG2965.DOC;3
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 2
2. Project Compliance with Law.
In our opinion, the Project is in conformance with City of Palo Alto Zoning and State law,
based on the following analysis:
This application is for a mixed use project on a parcel currently zoned as GM.
Although the housing portion of the mixed use proposal conflicts with the zoning
now in place, the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as well
as the dictates of Government Code Section 65915 (SB 1818), mandate that
housing be permitted on this site. The Housing Element further designates a
zoning standard of RM-40. The proposed project with 84 residential units and an
FAR of 1.0 is in compliance with the RM-40 zoning standard.
With more than 10% of the units designated as BMR units, the Project is also
entitled to a "concession" pursuant to, and as defined in, Government Code
Section 65915. The requested concession is to allow the project as a mixed-use
development with a 1 to 1 FAR for the housing in addition to the existing FAR of
0.5 in the GM zone for the non-residential use.
Approval of mixed use in connection with the housing project is specifically
identified as a permissible concession under subsection (1) of Government Code
Section 65915 if the non-residential use will reduce the cost of the housing
development. In this case, the non-residential use will reduce the cost of the
housing because certain costs, such as land acquisition, site due diligence, and
utility connections, are shared between the housing and the R&D uses.
The additional FAR is necessary to accommodate the non-residential use without
decreasing the number of residential units, thus keeping within the purpose and
intent of the statute.
To summarize, under City policy the proposed housing in the Park Plaza Project is
permitted. By State statute, the Project is entitled to be a mixed use development due to
its inclusion of BMR units. The proposed non-residential.use is permitted by the
underlying zoning. Accordingly, the project is in compliance with current City policy
and zoning and may be approved pursuant thereto and to applicable State law. It is our
understanding that the Senior Deputy City Attorney who has reviewed this Project
concurs with the foregoing.
3. Design Enhancement Exceptions.
Although the Project isin conformance with RM-40 density standards, City staffhas
taken the position that the Project must conform with all RM-40 standards (set-backs, daylight
plane and site coverage). This is incorrect, because the proposed Project is a mixed-use project.
To apply the housing development Standards of RM-40 to a mixed-use project in a GM zone is
MG2965.DOC;3
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 3
arbitrary and inappropriate. The Project was designed with standards appropriate to the mixed-
use character and context of the Project to accommodate both the residential and non-residential
components. The result is that, with de minirnis site exceptions, the Project actually complies
with even the most strict RM-40 requirements. The minor exceptions are reviewable as Design
Enhancement Exceptions ("DEEs") and were so reviewed by the ARB in its final hearing on
September 7, 2006.
4. ARBSuppog.
The Project received final review and approval, with a unanimous favorable vote, from
the Architectural Review Board on September 7, 2006. The ARB agreed with our analysis and
complimented the Project extensively. The ARB showed strong support for the Project, saying,
in particular, that this was the first real effort in the City to develop a mixed-use project and
applauding the provision of market rate and below market rate rental housing along with the
effort to keep R&D in the City. The ARB specifically rejected the findings of the staff and flatly
disagreed with the staffs findings on DEEs for the alleged non-conformance with RM-40
standards. One ARB member stated that, for the first time, he found himself 180 degrees
opposed to the staffs position.
5. Planning Director’s Action.
Nevertheless, the Director of Planning & Community Environment has stated he could
not approve the application because:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Mixed use is not permitted in the GM zone;
Excessive FAR;
DEE findings cannot be made.
Reasons (1) and (2) are incorrect for the reasons set forth above, Reason (3) was
explicitly rejected by the ARB.
Furthermore, because the Project is in conformance with City zoning and State law, the
Planning Director is precluded from appealing the Project to the City Council on such grounds.
The Director also states that CHP has not complied with Section 65915 because it did not
provide economic "justification" that the mixed-use, FAR and DEEs are "necessary to provide
the affordable housing units." This is erroneous. Section 65915 requires only that a requested
concession "reduce the cost of the housing development." There is no requirement that
economic justification be provided to justify each item of "non-conformance." Regardless,
CHP’s letters of July 29, 2006 and August 14, 2006 and the NAI BT Commercial letter of
September 27, 2006, clearly address this issue and provide economic justification.
The Director’s objections are without merit. His conclusion is simply not within his
purview under the directives of Section 65915. Moreover, the Director has failed to deny the
MG2965.DOC;3
Members of the City Council
September 27, 2006
Page 4
application within the three day requirement of Section 18.77.070 (Director’s letter was issued on
September 15, 2006, eight days after the ARB’s unanimous approval recommendation of
September 7, 2006). Accordingly, the Director is estopped from denying the project.
6. Conclusion.
We request that you support the Architectural Review Board in its findings and approve
the Project and enter the requested findings submitted for the City Council. The proposed
findings are also attached hereto.
Sincerely,
JRJ/mg
MG2965.DOC;3
o
FINDINGS
The Park Plaza Project is an appropriate site in Palo Alto for CHP to use one
concession under SB 1818 since CHP is providing more than 10% BMR units.
CHP’s one concession under SB 1818 entitles CHP to provide a mixed-use project
on the Project site which is zoned GM permitting 0.5 FAR for nonresidential use
(i.e., R&D) and superimposing RM-40 housing ofa 1 to 1 FAR to provide a
combined FAR of 1.5.
The use of mixed-use in the Project reduces the cost of the housing development.
The fmancial analysis supplied by CHP justifies the fact that the R&D component
of the mixed-use reduces the cost of the housing development.
The approval of the ARB of the Park Plaza Project is sanctioned and the refusal of
the Planning Director to approve CHP’s application is overturned.
The DEE’s granted by the ARB on the Park Plaza Project are approved.
MG2955.DOC;1.1
3" Oon n ercia
Commercial Real Estate Services, Worldwide.
September 27, 2006
1950 University Avenue, Suite 220
Palo Alto CA 94303
tel 650 852 1200
fax 650 856 1098
www.naibtcomm ercial.corn
Steve Emslie
City of Palo Alto
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
Re: Park Plaza Project, 195 Page Mill Road, 2865 Park Boulevard
Ihave been requested to give an independent opinion of Court House Plaza
Company’s election to use one concession under SB 1818 to overcome zoning
issues and whether Court House Plaza Company has economically justified use
of that concession.
I have been supplied with the following:
1. Steve Emslie’s letter of 9/15/2006 to CHP;
2. The pertinent potions of SB 1818;
3. CHP’s letter of July 28, 2006 to Steve Emslie;
4. Susan Arpan’s memo of August 4, 2006
5. CHP’s letter of August 14, 2006 to Susan Arpan.
As background for giving this opinion, I am a Partner in thecommercial real
estate firm of NAI BT Commercial. I graduated from Stanford University in 1977
and received an MBA in Finance in 1983 from NYU. I have worked in
commercial real estate for over 20 years and as a broker in the Palo Alto area,
since 1988. I have frequently completed financial analyses of development deals
and evaluations of existing R&D and apartment projects.
I have made an independent review of CHP’s letters listed above. I have
reviewed portions of SB 1818, which states that a concession includes approval
of mixed use zoning in conjunction with a housing project, if it "will reduce the
cost of the housing development." I have also reviewed your letter of September
15, 2006 in which you state that it is necessary to "provide detailed economic
justification that the requested mixed use, FAR and DEEs are necessary to
provide the affordable housing units"
TMBuild on the power of our network. Over 300 offices worldwide.
As can be learned from the data submitted by CHP in its two letters, the R&D
space will cost less to build than the residential space and will generate more
income per square foot than the residential. This brings me to the same
conclusion that the inclusion of the R&D in the mixed-use project reduces the
cost of the housing component and clearly meets the requirements for CHP’s
request for one concession.
Even using your criteria set forth in your letter of September 15, 2006 (which I do
not believe is justified under SB1818) all three are necessary to provide the
affordable housing units. This is particularly true since this is a proposed rental
project.
The project cannot be economically justified by only building rental apartments.
By adding R&D in a mixed use project for an additional investment of
approximately $6.8 million for the shell and another $1.5 million for improvements
returns an additional $1.2 million. This equates to a 14.5% return on the R&D
component versus a return of1.4% ($671,663/$46,71 7,719) for the housing
component alone. Blending the two returns gives a return of 3.09% which is still
too low and makes it clear that all of the items listed by you in your September
15, 2006 letter are required by CHP: The inclusion of the BMRs in the housing.at
the same cost to build but at substantially less rent only aggravates the overall
return which is inadequate.
In conclusion, the concession requested by CHP is supported by the detailed
economic justification supplied by CHP. The CHP economic justification clearly
shows that the mixed-use project clearly reduces the cost of the housing
development and therefore meets the requirement for the granting of the
concession requested. The CHP economic justification also meets your criteria
(not found in SB1818) that the requested mixed use, FAR and DEEs are
necessary to provide the affordable housing units.
Sincerely,
9,rtner ~
Attachment C
Location Map
GM
195 Page Mill Rd & 2865/2891 Park Blvd:
Listed on the Housing Sites Inventory
2901 & portion of 3045 Park Blvd:
*Certificate of Compliance approved to consolidate into one parcel
*Rear portion zoned GM(AD)
City of Palo Alto
Attachment
1 200
Department o~ Planning &
O:mmunity Environment
August 14, 2006
Members of the
Architectural Review Board
Of The City of Palo Alto
Re: Park Plaza Project
2865 Park Boulevard
195 Page Mill Road
Hoover Associates (Hoover) is submitting this letter preliminary to the final
hearing on September 7, 2006 to specifically address certain issues with respect to
Emerson street residents.
The centerline of Emerson Street is 509 feet from the closest property line of the
Park Plaza site. Between the R-1 homes on Emerson and the Park Plaza site is a.buffer
zone of RM-30 multi-family apartments 134.5 feet in depth, Alma Street having a width
of 100 feet and CalTrain right of way having a width 110 feet as shown in Presentation
Exhibit A. Elevations above sea level from Emerson Street to the Agilent building are
also shown in Presentation Exhibit A. As can be seen, the height of the Agilent building
is 13.33 feet greater than the proposed Park Plaza building.
Hoover and Court House Plaza Company (CHP) have had numerous meetings
including a public meeting with The Midtown Residents Association (Midtown) on
August 11, 2005 as well as meetings in Hoover offices at which a model was presented.
Other meetings were had with Annette Ashton the Chair and Sheri Furman, the Vice
Chair of Midtown, Suzanne Bayley at Hoover offices on August 7, 2006. A further
Midtown meeting is planned for August 15, 2006.
In order to alleviate concerns about the appearance of the rear elevation of the
Park Plaza Project, an independent consultant was retained that suggested the Mondrian
concept for the rear elevation. This concept was discussed with Midtown. A further
suggestion was made by Midtown that all windows facing Emerson Street be eliminated
because of a complaint of green glare from Agilent windows. Hoover implemented this
suggestion by eliminating all Emerson Street facing windows and provided natural light
to the rear single-loaded corridors by side windows in offsets from the rear elevation.
Thereafter, following suggestions from ARB members at the June 1, 2006 ARB hearing,
four windows have been provided on the rear elevation to introduce natural light into the
~9oo Ernbf, P3~J;r§i~c°rrid°rs of the Park Plaza project.
Suite 200
Pato Alto, Ca 94303
650.327.7400 tel
650.858.491- fax
Also in accordance with suggestions made by Midtown, CHP has negotiated for a
10 foot easement from the Joint Powers Board in the CalTrain right of way, making it
possible to plant trees immediately adjacent to the Park Plaza site. This provides further
vegetation to augment the existing vegetation along Alma Street and to augment the
appearance of the project to riders of CalTrain. All of these changes to the Park Plaza
Project appeared to satisfy the concerns of Midtown.
Only recently has it become known that there are still some Emerson Street
residents who apparently wish to propose further changes to the project or presumably
not to have any project built on the site. These views were made known at the PTOD
hearing before the City Council on July 17, 2006. They argued that the PTOD should not
be approved by the City Council unless the Park Plaza Project was required to meet the
design-based criteria in the PTOD.
Hoover & CHP fail to understand these objections. The Park Plaza Project is
basically the same project submitted to the ARB on September 29, 2005 for preliminary
ARB review. The concept of a PTOD did not arise until late in 2005. It was not adopted
until July 24, 2006 on a 5 to 4 vote and has since been continued until September 11,
2006. The use of the PTOD is discretionary with the landowners in the PTOD. The
PTOD is not desirable for the Park Plaza Project, because CHP wishes to preserve its
existing 50,467 square feet of R&D with an FAR of 0.48 where only 0.25 FAR is to be
permitted under the PTOD.
Hoover and CHP .fail to understand why certain Emerson Street residents favor the
context-design criteria of the PTOD over the Park Plaza site. Under the PTOD a 50 foot
height limit is available. It cannot be seen how a daylight plane and a breakup of the rear
facade of Park Plaza would even be noticeable visually or soundwise to Emerson Street
residents approximately 500 feet away.
Hoover has prepared color presentations of photographs (Presentation Exhibits B
& C) taken on July 21, 2006 at an elevation about six feet above the sidewalk from the
opposite side of Emerson Street and facing the Park Plaza site. Presentation Exhibit B
shows the views as they existed on that date. At only one location can a small part of the
Agilent building be seen. The same view in Presentation Exhibit C shows the proposed
Park Plaza building in front of Agilent. On Emerson can the Park Plaza building be seen,
the same place as the Agilent building was seen. Although the Park Plaza building is 13
feet less in height, it still obscures the Agilent building because the Park Plaza building is
in front of the Agilent building. Thus, from Emerson Street, it is impossible to ascertain
whether there are setbacks or a daylight plane in the Park Plaza Project. Arguments that a
breakup of the Park Plaza building mass would permit CalTrain noise to pass through the
Park Plaza building and thereby ensure there would be no augmentation of CalTrain
noise for Emerson Street residents are not meritorions. CHP’s sound consultant Charles
Salter Associates Inc. (Salter) and that of the City’s sound consultant EIP Associates both
gave the opinion that any increase in noise from CalTrain by building the Park Plaza
Project would be immeasurable. See Salter’s letters of September 22, 2004 and
September 26, 2004 attached hereto. Any breakup of the Park Plaza Project would
imperil the Park Plaza courtyard ambience and would subject the Park Plaza tenants to
increased CalTrain noise.
In conclusion, Hoover wishes to state that it and CHP have gone to great lengths to
create a mixed-use project which provides spaces on a first level for R&D starmps which
in the past have made and will continue to make Palo Alto famous. Second and third
levels of housing have been provided so that tenants can live and work in the same
location and thereby reduce automobile use. The tenants are within walking distance of
the California Avenue CalTrain station and the California Avenue business district. The
Emerson Street residents are 500 feet on the other side of CalTrain and cex~ainly would
be affected only minimally by Park Plaza.
CHP has made a great effort to appease the concerns of Midtown and has made
changes in the project as pointed out above.
We ask that the ARB give its fmal approval to the project.
Hoover Associates
Richard B. Campbell AIA
Chief Executive Officer
Consultants in
&coustics
~,udio/Visua~
System Design
ana Tel acommunications
130 Sutter Street
San Francisco
California 94104
"gel: 415 397 0442
Fax: 415 397 0454
info @ cmsalter.com
www, cmsalter.com
Charles M Salter. PE
David R Schwind, FAES
Anthony P Nasl~. PE
Eva Duesler
Thomas A Schindler, PE
Kenneth W Graven. PE
Eric L Broadhurst, RE
John C Freytag, PE
Michael D Toy, PE
Thomas_ Corbelt
Durand R Begault Dh.D
Ross A Jerozal
Philip N Sanoers
Jason R Duty
Cristina L Miyar
RoPer[ ~ Alvara{lo
Joe}/ G D’Angelo
Julie A Malork
Brian Brustad
Brenda R Yee
Eric AYee
Troy Girnbel
Paul Langer
Timothy C McLain
Joshua M Roper
Kevin M Powell
ChristoPher A Peltier
Randy Waldeck
Jeff Clukey
Andrew Stanley
Peter Hoist
Ethan Salter
Elaine ¥ Hsieh
Tim G Brown
Claudia Kraene
Kandice V. Lee
Rebecca Cowger
Kevin Frye
¯ ~Bri~n. Good
an Graven
Marva D Noordzee
Candice tluey
Debbie Garcia
r-.le
22 September 2004
s M Salter A S s o C
Harold Hohbach
Courthouse Plaza Company
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
Fax: 650.853.0325
Subject:Park Plaza, Palo Alto, CA
CSA Project No. 04-0151
Dear Mr. Hohbach:
At the 11 August 2004 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, I understand that two
Emerson Street residents of the subject project expressed concern about sound reflections off of
your proposed building. This letter responds to this issue.
The added noise created by sound reflections is a phenomenon that we and other acoustical
engineers have studied extensively. A study by Caltrans concluded that reflections off buildings or
barriers typically contribute less than 1 dBA to the overall noise level1. Our firm has conducted
reflection measurements. These measurements occurred off a 50-feet tall building and a 15-feet
tall sound wall where there was direct line-of-sight between the reflecting surface and the req.eivers
of sound. In the case of the concerned citizens who testified at the hearing, their homes on
Emerson are located over 400 feet from the proposed building. Furthermore, they are shielded
from sound reflections as a result of one row of one and two story apartments and another row of
homes on the west side of Emerson Street. We thus conclude that the effect of sound reflecting off
the proposed building would contribute an immeasurable increase to the noise at the homes of these
concerned citizens. There is no reason for their concern.
This completes my comments on the subject matter. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely Yours,
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Charles M. Salter, P.E.
President
Carol Jansen
E-mail: cjansen@wofldnet.att.net
CMS/ch p: 04-015 l_04Sep22CMS_Park Plaza
1 Interstate 680 Liroma Stonecastle sound wall study, California Department of Transportation July....
1994.
17:10 FAX 415 3970454 CHARLES hi SALTER ASSOC
3 .) sorter’Street
;~. ifornia 9,1t 0"4
i:~ 415 397.0442
, a .:: 415 397 0454
~f- ~@cmsalter, corn
tv w.crnsaltor.com
26Septernber2005
Harold Hohbach
Courthouse Plaza Company i "
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
Fax: 650.853.0325
Subject:Park Plaza, Palo Alto, CA
Acoustical Revie~v of Project Revisions
CSA Project No. 04-0151
i
Dear Mr. Hohbach:
Based on our discussions and review of the most recent project drawings (received via email from
Hoover on 26 September 2005), we understand the project has been "downgraded" fiom:177 total
units to 84 total units. Revisions include one less floor and no traits facing the railroad t]’acks. The
following are our comments:
.¸Since there are no unit windows facing the CalTrain tracks in the revised project, the sound-
rated window assembly requirement specified for this exterior faqade in our 18 Juno 2004
environmental noise report (i.e., STC 38) is no longer .relevant.
In ottr 22 September 2004 letter addressing two Emerson Street ~esidents’ concerns about
smmd reflections off the proPOsed buildings (11 August 2004 Planning and Transportation
Commission Meeting), we concluded_that, due to setback and shielding, there wcuhl be an
immeasm:able hacrease (i.e., less than 1 dBA) to the noise at the homes of these concerned
citizens. With the recent revisions to the Proposed buildings, there is no change fit our opinion.
This completes our comments on the subject matter. Please call if you have any qnesdons.
Sincerely,
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
"7"--/Elaine Y. Hsieh .
Consultant
EYH!eh
P: 04-0 l 51_05S ep26EYH_Park Plaza
)
Attachment E
30 August 2006
Christopher A. Riordan, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Development
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Fax (650) 329-2154
RECEIVED
AUG 3 0 2006
Department of PlannJn.e and
Community Environment
RE:Park Plaza, 195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Riordan:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments received at the final formal ARB meeting on
June 1, 2006, That hearing was continued to July 6, 2006. The continued final formal hearing has
subsequently been set for September 7, 2006. Comments from the individual members have
been Organized into categories as noted below. In many cases, the comment (or a similar
comment) was made by multiple members of the ARB.
Comments relating to the Park Boulevard frontage:
The project should be more pedestrian friendly at street level along Park Boulevard.
Park Boulevard should be a pedestrian friendly corridor.
Response:
The Park Boulevard frontage has been delineated with discrete compositions to break up
the elongated appearance along Park Boulevard. Looking from left to right, the first is the
corner at Page Mill and Park Boulevard. This corner has been emphasized by placing the
screen for the mechanical equipment at the corner so that the corner will be highly visible
when traveling East on Page Mill Road to provide a landmark for Park Plaza. Residential
apartments on the second and third le~rels extend from the corner to a recessed pool area
at the third level. The apartments are provided with extensive articulationby the use of
recessed balconies, different colors of stucco and projecting cladding in the form of
Centria metal panels. To provide more interest, a vertical gradation of profiles is
proposed with wider panels being used to delineate the floor lines and the top Of the
parapet. The recessed pool at the third level is surrounded by glass to provide large areas
for sunning which are exposed to the sun at almost all hours. A large black and gold
granite fountain with an illuminated larger than life size bronze figure is next viewed
adjacent to the right hand end of the pool and adjacent to the courtyard and provides
another significant and different composition for the Park Boulevard facade. The portion
of the fountain adjacent to the Park Plaza building is surrounded by a recessed gold
1900 Embarcaaero Road
Suite 200
Palo A!tc Ca 94303
65C .327.7400
650.858.491 i fax
Chris Riordan
ARB Responses
22 June 2006
Page 2
granite curvilinear wall extending up to the pool deck. The curvilinear wall is washed
with light from above to accentuate the Park Plaza and its entrance to the courtyard.
A further dramatic articulation is provided in a large recessed open deck at the second
level accessible from the gym and overlying the entrance to the courtyard.. The Park
Boulevard facade at the second and third levels ends with apartments treated in a manner
similar to the other apartments facing Park Boulevard.
At the ground level starting with the Page Mill corner, an arcade extends from Park
Boulevard along Page Mill Road to provide a principal access to the R&D spaces. The
arcade is lighted with surface mounted Italian Murano glass disc-shaped fixtures to
emphasize this entrance to Park Plaza. A black granite base is provided along the base of
the building on all walls adjacent to planting areas. Although glazing is utilized for the
R&D spaces along Park Boulevard, this glazing is screened by extensive planting in the
approximately nine foot setback extending between the sidewalk and the building. To
enhance the pedestrian friendliness of this street, six spaced apart raised pedestals have
been provided on stripe forms corresponding to those used in the courtyard. A curved
seat wall is provided on the curved stripe on one side of each planter. The pedestals and
arcuate shapes are formed of concrete. An artistic Stonewear Kalypso Series 36 inch
diameter planter is provided on each pedestal. Seating is thereby provided accessible to
pedestrians in six locations in addition to the Seating provided by the fountain. Thus, it
can be seen that there is great variation along the facade of the Park Plaza project along
Park Boulevard.
2
3
Comments relating to general design:
The project does not relate to the neighborhood.
Response:
There is no distinct design theme in the area of the project. The three buildings in the
closest proximity are Agilent (precast concrete), Aikens Body Shop (white stucco) and the
Danger Building (red brick). The choice to use metal panels and stucco was an attempt to
recall the former metal industrial type buildings and concrete structure on the site and to
provide a contemporary design which blends into the neighborhood.
Comment relating to the locating R&D on the ground floor with apartments above does
not address the need to handle fume hood exhausts and similar ventilation requirements,
Response:
Four vertical chases are provided at the four stairs adjacent to the elevators. Each chase
will accommodate up to eight ducts of 16 inches diameter each. Final configuration of the
ducts will depend upon the requirements of the tenant(s). For purposes of illustration,
two ten inch diameter ducts for each chase are shown on the drawings (see Drawings
Chris Riordan
ARB Responses
22 June 2006
Page 3
A2.2 and A2.3). R&D spaces are designed under Occupancy B or F of the California
Building Code. The chases at the roof will be covered so that they can be modified to
meet the needs of the R&D tenants.
5
Comments relating to the natural lighting:
Skylights were suggested for the corridors on the top floor.
Place windows back into the rear wall to provide natural lighting in the two side
corridors.
Response:
Skylights are undesirable because they will compromise the energy efficiency of the
structure and are only appropriate for the top level. Natural lighting into the rear
corridor is provided by windows at the offsets to eliminate any windows facing directly
toward the neighbors across the CalTrain tracks and Alma Street. However, to
accommodate the desires of the ARB while minimizing the effect on the neighbors, four
recessed windows have been provided to provide lighting into the two side second and
third level corridors. With respect to the front corridors, glazing from the pool deck for
the third level and glazing from the deck above the entrance to the courtyard for the
second level provides natural light for those corridors.
Comments related to the treatment of the courtyard:
Will there be a tot-lot or similar play opportunities for young children?
Wouldn’t the pool work better in the courtyard?
Response:
The pool is located where shown to take advantage of sun exposure throughout the day.
At this location the pool will create much less noise for others to enjoy the courtyard. In
addition, security and safety for the pool are significantly improved at the location
proposed. It is believed that the courtyard is properly designed to meet the requirements
of the mixed use project. A large courtyard has been provided in which the parking
provided hasbeen limited to visitor parking. The parking is separated and screened from
the remainder of the courtyard. Turf and paved areas are provided to meet many
requirements. Tables, chairs and lounges can be provided. An interior fountain is
provided to provide a pleasant ambient noise level. The paved areas are great for play.
Children can ride tricycles, bicycles with learning wheels, etc. An activity room and a
gym are provided on the second level with access to a large patio to provide for other
activities in addition to swimming on the third level. Two underutilized parks are within
walking distance of Park Plaza. Jerry Bowden Park at North California and High Street,
which includes a tot playground, is accessible through the CalTrain overpass, and Sarah
Nallis Park is located at Grant and Ash.
Chris Riordan
ARB Responses
22 June 2006
Page 4
10
Comment relating tO retail on the ground floor:
Retail at ground floor is still favored.
Response:
Staff has gone on record not favoring this. Retail here would compete with retail on
California Avenue, which is only two blocks away.
Comments relating to colors, materials and material interfaces:
Provide Colored rendered elevations.
Provide profiles of the various metal panel configurations proposed.
Include details, of interfaces between different materials.
Response:
Requested material samples and other exhibits will be provided as requested.
Comments relation to acoustical issues:
Recognizing that the rear units do not open up directly to CalTrain - what about
acoustical treatment of the side units?
Response:
In compliance ~’¢ith the acoustical report, the windows facing Page Mill and Stanford
European in the side units closest to CalTrain will have glazing to meet STC
requirements.
Comments relating to exterior lighting:
Provide a photometric diagram for all exterior lighting.
Some exterior lighting would be desirable to show off features of the building.
Response:
A photometric drawing has been prepared to show point to point footcandle values at the
ground level in the courtyard and along the Park Boulevard facade. Lighting has been
provided on the exterior to emphasize the Page Mill - Park Boulevard corner and at the
fountain and the entrance to emphasize the entrance the courtyard.
Comments relating to consistencies between drawings.
Inconsistencies exist between the building elevations and sections.
The "break line" at the mitered corners is not consistently shown.
Response:
Drawings have been corrected.
Chris Riordan
ARB Responses
22 June 2006
Page 5
11 Comments relating to the proposed PTOD Zoning:
Strict compliance with PTOD may not work for this project, but try to come as close as
possible with respect to the daylight plane using the 10’ CalTrain easement.
Response:
Using the proposed daylight plane on the Park Plaza project and using the 10’ CalTrain
easement as shown in the attached sketch, only portions along the length along CalTrain
protrude into the daylight plane and then only by an average of six feet. Since the
daylight plan for properties facing CalTrain was first proposed in February 2, 2006, long
after the applicant’s preliminary ARB hearing on September 25,2005, it is believed
inappropriate for the ARB to consider the daylight plane as a requirement.
12 Comments relating to tree planting on the CalTrain easement:
Planting appears to be random.
Response:
The tree planting was intended to break up the facade on the CalTrain side. It was not
intended to provide a screen. However, if the ARB desires a specific arrangement or
more trees, such desires can be accommodated.
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
HOOVER ASSOCIATES
Richard B. Campbell, AIA
Chief Executive Officer
Cc: Harold C. Hohbach, Courthouse Plaza Company Fax (650) 853-0325
UNiT
T.O. ROOF
91:~P FLO(
2NP FLC
I
Feature
Minimum Site Area
Minimum Site Width
Minimum Site Depth
Front Setback
Project’s Conformance with Zoning Code Regulations
1 95 Page Mill Road & 2825,2865, 2873, 2901 Park Boulevard
CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (GM DISTRICT)
AND !8.26(RM-40) BY REFERENCE
Regulations Proposed
Street Side Setback
Rear Setback
Floor Area Ratio
Site Coverage
Usable Open Space
Building Height
Daylight Plane
Parking Spaces
R&D
Residents
Residential Visitors
GM No Requirement
RM-40:8,500 sq. ft.
GM No Requirement
RM-40 70 ft.
GM No Requirement
R M-40 100 ft.
GM No Requirement
RM-40 25 ft.
GM No Requirement
RM-40 10 ft.
Accessible Parking
Bicycle Parking
GM No Requirement
RM-40 10 ft.
GM 0.5
52,486
RM-40i 1.0
104,971
Total 157,457
GM No Requirement
RM-40 50% (52,486 sq. ft.)
GM No Requirement
RM-40 20% (20,994 sq. ft.)
GM 150 ft.
RM-4040 ft.
GM !No Requirement
RM-40 Starting at 15 foot height
above side and rear
property lines, then
.extending 45 degrees
into the property
Conformance
Conforms
~Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms for Mixed Use
DEE Requested if Necessary
Conforms
Conforms for Mixed Use
DEE Requested if Necessary
Conforms
Conforms with use of 10 foot
Joint Powers Board Easement
Conforms
104,971 sq. ft. Conforms
Conforms
451.67 ft.
212.67 ft.
I8.67 ft.I
6.67 ft.
Varies: 3 ft. to 15 ft.
0.48
50,468
1.02
107,034
157,502 Conforms
Conforms
49 % (51,729 sq. ft.) Conforms
Conforms
37% (39,112 sq. ft.) Conforms
Conforms
38.67 ft.Conforms
Conforms
Conforms with
Minor Exceptions using 10 foot
Joint Powers Board Easement
at rear
DEE Requested
CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.83 (Parking/Landscape)
Conforms with
Applicant request
for 23% reduction for
shared parking and
transPortation alternative
as approved by the
.P,~q~nin g Director .
I V
202
149
28
379 293
(Additional 9 Visitor Spaces
379 in Landscape Reserve)
8 Spaces 7 in Garage, 1 at Grade b
112 112
JUN 2 3 2006 "
Department of Planning and
Community ~nvironrnent
Project’s Conformance with Zoning Code Regulations
% Interior Landscaping
Islands (5’x5’ rain.)
# Interior trees in Surface
Parking Lot
Tree, Shrub Size
5% of parkin~ lot area
One per 10 parking
spaces in a row
One tree per six stalls
(3 required)
15 gal. Trees required,
25% 24" box, 5 gal.
shrubs 50%
Exceeds 5%
Row of 10 parking spaces
in courtyard parking lot area
More than 3 trees in ’
surface parking lot area
All 65 trees will be between
24"-36"box size
All 801 shrubs will be
between 5-15 gallon size
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Attachment B -. -
Courthouse Plaza Company
29 Lowery Drive, Atherton, CA 94027
Phone 650.322.8242
Fax 650.853.0325
Friday, May 13, 2005
Chairman Judith Wasserman
Members of the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Park Plaza, 2865 Park Blvd. & 195 Page Mill Road
Dear Chairman Wasserman,
We are pleased to submit an application for a preliminary ARB review of the 2.41 acre site
located south eagerly of the intersection of Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard near the
California Avenue CalTrain station.
The site is currently used for commercial purposes, and contains old concrete and .Buffer
corrugated steel buildings. Our plan is to construct a three story mixed use building with 84 one,
two andthree bedroom residential units onthe second andthird floors over 50, 468 sq. feet of
Resegrch and Development (R & D). Parking is provided with one full level of underground
parking (275 spaces) and some surface interior courtyard visitor parking (34 spaces). The project
meets the City’s parking requirement for a mixed use project, which allows for up to a 20%
parking reduction.
The propertyis currently zoned for general manufacturing use (GM-B) andhas 50,468 sq. ft. of
grandfathered R & D buildings, which will be removed and replaced to accommodate the
proposed development. This proposal is consistent with city, regional, and state policy in four key
areas:
The project will introduce housing into an area that has been historically zoned and used
for manufacturing, research and development, and commercial service uses; .....
¯As a mixed use development, the project will provide for a work and living environment
within two thousand feet (less than 650 ft.) of the California Avenue Cal Train station.
[]The project will provide 84 one, two, and three bedroom residential units in Palo Alto,
which is consistent with City Council Comprehensive Plan policies and goals to create
additional residential m this community, andparticulafly on commercialy zoned sites.
2
The proposed project includes 14 (17%) below market rate residential units, with a 50%
density bonus increase consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for projects located m
Transit Oriented areas.
Transportation Issues -
Due to the project’s close proximity to the City’s California Avenue CalTrain station, the
California Avenue Business District, the Stanford Research Park, and the Stanford Marguerite
systems, all of which substantially reduce dependency on the automobile, there are no significant
traffic impacts generated from the project. Individual 5’ x 5’x 8’ storage lockers, capable of
holding one or more bicycles, will be provided for all 84 residential units.
Sustainability -
The Park Plaza project incorporates many dements that support sustainable development and
reduce long term impact to the environment. The existing concrete corrugated steel buildings and
concrete paving will be recycled so that these materials can be used in other projects without
adding to the City’s limited landfill capacity. The existing buildings predommately consist of
concrete and metal buildings, all of which are recyclable materials.
In the final design and sdection of materials, consideration will be given to sustainable design.
Although a LEEDS certification will not be formally documented, the project will strive for
credits wherever practical under the Green Building Rating System, Version 2.1. This will be
addressed in more detail at the ARB meeting.
Project Site/nformation-
Gross site area 2.41 acres
# Residential units 84 one, two andthree bedroom units
# Units permitted 108 (2.41 acres x 30 du’s per acre permitted under the
standard GM(B) plus 50% density bonus increase for additional
Below Market Rate housing units under H-28
# BMR units 14 one, and two bedroom units
R & D space 50,468 sq. ft
# Parking spaces 309 total; 275 below ground, 34 within the courtyard,
with an additional 21 m landscape reserve
The project will meet all city parking requirements for residential, visitor, and R& D use, with a
20% reduction for mixed use development.
Design Objectives-
After studying numerous building configurations, four of which were reviewed in two study
sessions with the ARB, it was decided that a single building surrounding a large interior courtyard
best served the needs and desires of the future occupants of the project and project neighbors,
The courtyard will accommodate limited visitor parking as well as landscape and hardscape
features. Views into thecourtyard from the residential units and the R&D spaces will be
enhanced by the use of large planted areas and decorative paving and paver stones.
For efficiency of space the residential units are arranged along a double loaded corridor. The
exception is that pomon of the upper two floors which front along the CalTrain tracks, To
mitigate noise levels the residential units are single loaded with the corridor providing an
acoustical barrier between the tracks and the residences.
The overall building design is a contemporary three story structure with one level of R&D at
ground level and two levels of residential above. The decision to place R&D below residential
was based on the higher degree of security and privacy for the residential as well as better views
into the courtyard.
The fagade along Park Avenue is richly articulated to create an appropriate scale for the building.
In addition to the deep recess for the entry into the courtyard, the plane of the residential fagade is
articulated with pro3 coting building dements and recessed balconies. The facades facing Page
Mill to the Northwest and an existing auto dealership to the Southeast will have the same
articulation of recessed balconies and projecting building elements. The facade facing Northeast
along the CalTrain tracks will not have balconies as residential units facing the tracks are
eliminated here for acoustical considerations. However, the same palette of materials and colors
will be used to replicate the other three building elevations.
The height of the building varies slightly by the use of a higher Parapet in certain locations and by
the introduction of a cooling tower screen at the Page Mill / Park Avenue intersection. This
comer "tower" will be a focal point for the project for vehicles and pedestrians looking Northeast
on Page Mill.
With respect to varying the height of the building, and at some members of the ARB’s request,
studies were prepared for adding a partial fourth story. These studies were abandoned due to
issues with building height, which was not supported by staff or residents, and stair exiting
requirements from partial floors. Exterior materials and colors were chosen reminiscent of the
past history of industrial and warehouse uses m this area. Featured in the exterior skin are
contoured metal, panels (four of the existing bttilNnga to be demolished are metal Buffer
buildings) which are contrasted with smooth stucco in two colors.. Natural granite will be used at
the base and at other special areas.
Landscape Design -
The landscaping at Park Plaza has been designed to emphasize bold colors and textures while
utilizing water conservmg plants that require mmimal maintenance. The exterior features a row of
London Plane trees for shade and visual relief and an understory planting that includes colorful
Lavendar Star Flower, Chinese Fringe Flower, Society Garlic and Blue Hibiscus.
The interior courtyeard incorporates a 15 foot high Golden Bamboo hedge to separate the parldng
area from the pedestrian space. Raised planters with a seat height wall will feature semi-open
Birch and Boxleaf Azara trees. The understory will be lush and colorful with Azaleas, Chinese
Lantem, Big Blue Lily Tuff, and Hydrangeas.
4
Sculpture -
Sculpture is to be located adjacent to the main entry of the site along Park Boulevard. Two
proposed designs by Lorraine Vail have been included in the preliminary plans for ARB
consideration. Since the sculpture is elective and privately funded, no Art Commission review is
required.
Community Outreach-
In considering design alternatives, we met with residents in the community who have expressed
interest in the project, including representatives of the greater Midtown area, Barron Park, and
College Terrace. They supported the lower density and building profile of the project (in
comparison to the former Planned Community zone application). Emerson Street and Midtown
residents emphasized the need for screening the view of the building from Alma and
neighborhoods easterly of the site, even though the proposed project will net be as tall as the
Agilent building across Park Boulevard. We subsequently met with representatives of Canopies,
Inc. and are exploring the option of planting 24 inch box trees on the westerly side of Alma
(within the City 10 foot right-of-way) for the length of the project site.
In conclusion, we believe the project is highly supportive 0fthe existing Comprehensive Plan, the
City’s approved Housing Element, and staff interpretation of theGM 03) zoning regulations. The
project is an important new live/work entry into the Ventura neighborhood.
We are pleased to present the preliminary plans for Park Plaza to the Architectural Review Board,
and look forward to your comments.
Yours trtfly,
Courthouse Plaza Company
Hohbach Enterprises Inc.
General Partner
By.
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and Community Environment
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
loe Kott, Chief Transportational Official
Amy French, Planning Manager
Chris Riordan, project planner
HOOVER ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Planning
Interiors
29 September 2005
Christopher A. Ri0rdan, Planner
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Development
250 .Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE:Park Plaza, 2~65 Park Boulevard
Palo Alto, CA
RECEIVED
9 005
DEPh~’~, iv~E~, Or ~,LAitNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Dear Mr. Riordan:
This letter is to confirm an oral request made to you and Amy French in our meeting with you
on September 22, 2005 for a Design Enhancement Exemption (DEE) as described under Zoning
Section 18.76.50 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The DEE would address setbacks and the
daylight plane which were asked by your letter of September 1, 2005 to be provided under
RM~30 regulations deemed applicable to this mixed-use project.
The granting of a Design Enhancement Exception makes possible a superior architectural style
for the project, particularly since there are no adjoining residential properties, thus setbacks are
unneeded. Providing RM-30 setbacks would destroy to a great extent the architectural style of
the project, as one of its features is to provide a large central courtyard for insulating a majority
of the units from CalTrain and traffic noise. A proposed set of findings for submission to the
ARB for your possible use is set forth below.
The Park Plaza project is exceptional in that it involves site improvements in the form of
grandfathered commercial on the first floor and residential on the two floors above
abutting a CalTrain right of way which would not apply generally to property in the
same GM(B) District.
The granting ofthis application makes it possible to enhance the appearance of the
building by making possible a large attractive interior courtyard and also making it
possible to provide a unit layout in which no unit faces CalTrain. Setbacks for the
residential units over the commercial space would create an unattractive building
massing and would make it necessary to greatly diminish the size of the courtyard.
The exception will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience because of its location next to CalTrain and because it is not adjacent to
residential.
1900 Embarcadero Road Suite 200 Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone 650-327-7400. Facsimile 650-858-4911
Christopher A. Riordan
City of Palo Alto
28 September 2005
Page 2
Sincerely,
HOOVER ASSOCIATES
Richard B. Campbell,
Chief Executive Officer
cc: Harold C. Hohbach, Courthouse Plaza Company Fax (650) 853-0325
HOOVER ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Planning
Interiors
17 March 2006
Christopher A. Riordan, Planner
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Development
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE:Park Plaza
2865 Park Boulevard
195Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Riordan:
i’:’ 201:16
munity Environment
This letter will supplement our letter of 29 September 2005, wherein a request was made for a
Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to address setbacks and dayligh~ planes as applied to the
referenced project. This issue was recently revisited in a meeting on 13 March 2006 attended by
you, Amy French, Don Larkin, Harold Hohbach and the undersigned. As a result of that
meeting, we would like to add lot coverage to the DEE. Allowed lot coverage in the RM-30 Zone
is 40%, which is within the approval prerogative of the ARB. The Park Plaza project has a lot
coverage of 49.28%. Since this is less than 10% greater than the required 40%, it is our
understanding that this can be considered to be a minor exception. We also invite toyour
attention to the fact that this property has been discussed for a RM-40 rezoning. The lot
coverage in RM-40 zoning is 45%.
We therefor ask that the lot coverage of 49.28% be included in the DEE requested in our letter of
29 September 2005. We believe that the earlier suggested findings are broad enough to cover the
lot coverage issue.
We respectfully request granting of this Design Enhancement Exception.
Sincerely,
HOOVER ASSOCIATES
Richard B. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
cc: Harold C. Hohbach, Courthouse Plaza Company Fax (650) 853-0325
1900 Embarcaaero Road, Suite 200 Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone 650-327-7400, Facsimile 650-858~4917
COURTHOUSE PLAZA COMPANY
29 Lowery Drive, Atherton, CA 94027
Office (650) 328-2300
Fax (650)328-2390
Chairman Judith Wasserman
Members of the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
August 4, 2005
Re: Park Plaza
2865 Park Blvd.
This letter is being submkted with the application for final ARB approval of the
Park Plaza Project and is to supplement the letter of May 13, 2005 submitted in
conjunction with the Preliminary ARB review held on July 7, 2003,. This letter is to
respond to specific comments made by ARB members at the review on July 7, 2003. A
new set of drawings is being submitted for final approval of the ARB.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS OF DAVID SOLNICK
1.The curved wall behind the fountain has been reduced in height.
2.The screen for the cooling tower has been redesigned to increase its height
and to emphasize the focal point of the building at the corner of Park
Boulevard and Page Mill Road
3.The courtyard visitor parking has been reduced from 34 spaces to 19 spaces.
4.The shadows on the building have been corrected and are now shown in the
proper scale.
5. Underground parking access from Page Mill had been considered as pointed
out in the comments to the staff report. Such access is not considered to be
feasible because the Page Mill Road side of the building is needed to provide
spaces for unloading and loading of moving vans for Park Plaza.
6.The granite used for the fountain is shown in the drawings and on the sample
board.
B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS OF DREW MARAN
1. Retail is not being provided at the corner of the building at Park Boulevard
and Page Mill Road, because it is believed there would be inadequate foot
traffic to convince a prospective tenant that it could develop a profitable
business particularly in view of the fact that the California Avenue retail
business is within close walking distance of the Park Plaza Project.
2. The R&D tenancies cannot be ones which require type F occupancies
3.Plumbing of kitchen and restrooms for R&D tenants requiring the same can
be readily accommodated by core drilling through the concrete slab.
4.Roofing overlying some of the R&D spaces will be designed to
accommodate feasible mechanical loads.
An integral color hard cement plaster finish is being provided on the
CalTrain side of the R&D space. This will be easy to pressure wash to
remove dirt and grime. Access to the CalTrain side of the building will be
very difficult and would only be possible by crossing the CalTrain tracks
from Alma Street. If graffiti does appear on the Park Plaza wall it can be
removed by pressure washing and if necessary by repainting that surface.
The corridors of the Park Plaza Project will be illuminated from a 15KW
photovoltaic array. Natural light will be present in many of the residential
hallways. Since an elevator is provided in each of the four corners of the
building, any resident by choosing the appropriate elevator will only have a
short distance of travel to a selected apartment and need not traverse long
hallways.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS OF JUDITH WASSERMAN
1. It is contemplated that at least some of the R&D tenants will want their own
private kitchen and restroom facilities in their spaces which can be provided.
If this does not occur Park Plaza would provide at least one other restroom
facility for the R&D tenants, presumably diagonally opposite the restr0om
facility already provided.
2.The courtyard has been redesigned with less visitor parking now 19 spaces
instead of 34.
3.Bollards and well lights are being provided to provide courtyard lighting.
No Exterior lighting on the building is contemplated.
4. The granite being used is shown in the drawings and on the sample board.
5.Trash and recycling are accommodated in the underground garage.
Yours Truly,
Courthouse Plaza Company
Hohbach Enterprises, Inc.,
General Partner
Harold C. Hohbach, President
Project’s Conformance with Zoning Code Regulations
195 Page Mill Road & 2825,2865,2873,2891, 2901 Park Boulevard
CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (Office, Research, and Manufacturing Districts)
AND 18.24 (RM-30) BY REFERENCE
Feature
Minimum Site Area
Min. Site Width
Min. Site Depth
Front Setback
Street Side Setback
Regulation
8,500 sq. ft.
No requirement
No requirement ~
20 feet for residential
Proposed
104,971 sq. ft.
745 ft.
263 ft.
9ft.
6ft.
Right Side Setback
Rear Setback
Floor Area Ratio
Site Coverage
Usable Open Space
Building Height
Daylight Plane
Parking Spaces
Parking for Non-Res
Parking for Residential.
Guest
10 feet for 1 st Story
19 feet for 2nd and 3rd Stories
10 feet for 1 st Story
Conformance
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Does not conform
DEE Requested
Does not conform
DEE Requested
10 ft.Does
19 feet for 2nd and 3rd Stories DEE
Oft.Does
DEE
Does
DEE
(1.50) 157,502 sq. ft.
(.49) 51,729 sq. ft.
39,112 sq..ft.
38’-8" ft.
not conform
Requested
not conform
Requested
not conform
Requested
Does not conform
DEE Requested
Conforms
Does not conform
DEE Requested
Doesnot conform
DEE Requested
10 feet for 1 ~t Story
19 feet for 2nd and 3rd Stories
(.50) 52,486 sq. ft.
(.40) 41,989 sq. ft.
(.30) 31,491 sq. ft.
35ft
Five feet at side and rear
property lines and angle of
45 degrees
Entire bldg. length of
both sides and rear
encroach
(Applicant request for
o2 0% reduction for
shared parking)
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.83 (parking/landscape)
Required/Allowed Proposed Conformance
202 spaces Total of 293 spaces Does not conform
149 spaces
28
379 spaces 9 spaces in landscape
is required reserve
Accessible Parking
Bicycle Parking
Landscape feature
% interior plantings
Islands (5’ x 5’ min.)
# interior trees in surface
parking lot
Tree, shrub size
8 Spaces
112
Required
5% of parking lot area
One per ten parking
spaces in a row
One tree per six stalls for
10 trees (3 required)
15 gal. Trees req., 25%
24" box, 5 gal shrubs
50%
7 in the garage, 1 at grade
112
Proposed
Exceeds 5%
Row of 10 spaces in
surface parking lot with
no .island.
More than three trees in
surface parking lot area
All 65 trees will be
between 24"-36" box size
All 801 shrubs will be
between 5-15. gallon size
Conforms
Conforms
Conformance
Conforms
Does not conform
Conforms
Conforms
Attachment F
Project’s Conformance with the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) Combining District Development Standards
195 Page Mill Road & 2825,2865,2873,2891, 2901 Park Boulevard
Standards
Max Dwelling Units
Max FAR for Mixed
Use
Mixed Use Non-
Residential FAR Cap
(Office and R&D Use)
Height
Common Open Space
Min Area ¯
Common Open Space
Min Dimensions
Private Open Space
Min Dimensions
Setbacks
(Caltrain right-of-way)
Daylight Plane
(Caltrain right-of-way)
PTOD
40 DU/AC
1.25:1 (131,214 sq. ft.)
.25 (26,243 sq. ft.)
40 feet
100 s.f. per unit (8,400 s.f.)
. 12 feet min.
6 feet min.
5 feet (landscaped)
a. Initial height at
property line - 16 feet
b. Angle (Degrees): 45
Proposed
34.9 DU/AC
1.50:1 (157,387 sq. ft.)
.48 (50,467 sq. ft.)
3 8’-8" (top of roof)
39,112 s.f.
No dim. Less than
12ft.
¯ Each balcony has a
min. dimension of 6 ft.
Oft.
Entire building length
of rear elevation
encroaches
Conformance
Conforms
Does not conform
Does not conform
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Does not conform
Does not conform
05PLN-O0175
Attachment G
ORDINANCE NO. 4914
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 18.66 TO THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING
A CALIFORNIA AVENUE PEDESTRIAN TRANSIT-ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Findings and Declarations.
finds and declares as follows:
The City Council
(a) That in December 2000, the City Council approved a
work plan for the Zoning Ordinance Update involving the
preparation of a new Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC), inciuding the update of existing land use
chapters and processes as well as the preparation of chapters
for new and revised land uses;
(b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes
several programs and policies related to transit-oriented
residential development. The Zoning Ordinance Update was
initiated in part to accomplish these programs and policies.
(c) The last comprehensive update of the Palo Alto
Zoning Code took place in 1978. Provlsions for pedestrian and
transit-oriented development were not included in the zoning
provisions in that update.
(d) The City Council has considered the January 5, 2006
Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, prior to adopting this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.66 of Title 18 [Zoning] of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
//
//
//
//
060920 syn 8260189
Sections :
18.66.010
18.66. 020
18.66.030
18.66.040
18.66.050
18.66.060
18.66.070
Chapter 18.66
PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT
Purposes
Applicability
Land Uses
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) Combining District Regulations
Context-Based Design Criteria
Review Process
Non-conforming Uses & Non-complying
Facilities
18.66.010 Purposes
(a)California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Combining
District
The California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development (PTOD) Combining District is intended to allow
higher density residential dwellings on commercial,
industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable
distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station, while
protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with
historical resources that may also be located in or
adjacent to this area. The combining district is intended
to foster densities and facilities that:
i)support use of public transportation;
2)encourage a variety of housing types, commercial
retail and limited office uses;
3)encourage project design that achieves an overall
context-based development for the PTOD overlay area;
(4)require streetscape design elements that are
attractive pedestrians and bicyclists;
(5)increase connectivity to surrounding existing and
planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and
(6)
060920 syn 8260189
implement the City’s Housing Element and Comprehensive
Plan.
2
(b) [Reserved]
18.66.020 Applicability
a)The California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development Combining District (PTOD) may be combined with
any R-I, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM30, or RM40 district or
combination of such districts within the designated
California Avenue PTOD boundary (Exhibit A, reflected on
the City’s Zoning Map), consistent with the provisions of
Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.98. Where so combined, the
regulations established by this Chapter shall apply in lieu
of the provisions established by the underlying CC(2), CN,
GM, RM30, and/or RM40 zonlng district(s). Compliance with
the provisions of Chapter 18.46 Retail Shopping (R) and
Chapter 18.47 Pedestrian Shopping (P) combining districts
shall also be required where such combining districts are
applicable.
b)[Reserved]
c)A Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining
District may be applied to a parcel through rezoning of the
site, within the specified boundaries of the District, as
shown on the City’s approved zoning maps, pursuant to the
provisions and process outlined in Section 18.66.060 of
this Chapter and Chapter 18.98 of the Zoning Ordinance.
18.66.030 Land Uses
(a)The following land uses shall be permitted in the
California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development (PTOD)Combining District, subject to
limitations outlined in Sections 18.66.040 and 18.66.050.
/ ,!
//
//
//
//
//
060920 syn 8260189
Table I - Land Uses
Land Uses
Multiple-family residential
housing.
Mixed-use development,
where residential and non-
residential uses are
combined
Live/Work Units
Hotel
PTOD - California
¯ Avenue
P
P
See Section 18.66.030(b)
below for specific uses
PTOD University
Avenue [Reserved]
CUP
Subject to limitations of
Sec. 18.66.040(b)
P
Subject to limitations of
Sec. 18.66.040(c)
(P) = Permitted Use; (CUP) = Conditional Use, Use Permit Required
(b)Mixed Use development, where residential and non-
residential uses are combined, may include two or more of
the following uses:
C1)
(2)
060920 syn 8260189
Multi-family residential
Non-residential uses, limited to:
(A)Retail and personal services
(B)Eating and drinking services
(C)Other non-residential uses allowed except
ground floor where an (R) overlay exists:
(i)Offices;
(ii)General business services;
(iii)Business and trade schools;
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
on the
Private education facilities;
Day care center;
Community center;
Commercial recreat±on;
Convalescent facility; and
Research and development, limited to sites
where the underlying zoning district is GM
and involving the use and storage of
hazardous materials in quantities less
than the exempt quantities allowed by
Title 15 of the Municipal Code (section
105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code).
4
(c)Prohibited uses in the California Avenue PTOD:
(I) Single-family and two-family uses;
(2)Manufacturing,processing,
distribution; and
warehousing and
Research and development where hazardous materials are
used or stored in excess of quantities less than the
exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal
Code (section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code)
(d)All land uses must be reviewed and approved by the Planning
and Transportation Commission and City Council at the time
of rezoning to PTOD.
18.66.040 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD)
Combining District Regulations
(a)Properties in the PTOD combining district are subject to
the following regulations:
Max Dwelling Units:
Table 2
Development Standards
40 DU/AC~
Max FAR:
100% Residential FAR
Mixed Use FAR
Mixed Use Non-
Residential FAR Cap
1.0:12
1.25:12’3
Total: 0.354
Office and research and development
uses: 0.25 FAR
Hotels 2,0
Height:40 feet2
Open Space
5 or fewer units: 200 s.f. per unitMinimum area required 6 or more units: 100 s.f, per unit
060920 syn 8260189
5
Minimum dimensions
Parking:
Parking Adjustments:
Private open space: 6 feet
Common open space: 12 feet
Rates established by use, per Section
18.83.050
See Section 18,66.040 (d) .
Setbacks and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zones: ¯
Setbacks
Daylight Plane
On portion of site that abuts:
11 Interior side yard: 6 feet
2. Rear yard: 20 feet
On portion Of site that abuts:
i. Interior side yard:
a. Initial height at interior side lot
fine: 10 feet
b. Angle (degrees): 45
2. Rear yard:
a. Initial height at rear setback line:
16 feet
b. Angle (Degrees): 45
Setbacks and daylight and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent to Caltrain Right-of, Way:
Setbacks
Daylight Plane
On portion of site that abuts Caltrain
right-of-way:. 5 feet (landscaped)
On portion of site that abuts Caltrain
right-of-way:
a. Initial height at property line
w/Caltrain right-of-way: 16 feet
b. Angle (Degrees): 45
~ Non-residential development that is not consistent with the mixed-use limitations set forth above, with the
exception of Hotels, must be developed per the underlying zoning district regulations.
2 See Section 18.66.040(e) for Below Market Rate (BMR) bonus provisions.
3 The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0:1.
4 The non-residential component of a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total square-footage of
the project.
060920 syn 8260189
6
(b Live/Work Units
(i)
(2
(3
(5
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
A live/work unit, for the purposes of this chapter, is
defined as a rental or ownership unit comprised of
both living space and work area, with the living space
occupying a minimum of 60% of the total gross floor
area of the unit, and such that the resident of the
living space is the owner/operator of the work area.
The work area shall be located on the ground level,
oriented to the street and provide for at least one
external entrance/exit separate from the living space.
The work area may be used for office, retail, personal
services, or handcrafted goods (unless otherwise
limited by this Chapter), but shall non be used for
restaurants or cafes or for any business involving the
storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of
the quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal
Code (Section 105.8 of the Fire Code).
The maximum number of employees who do not reside
within the unit is two (2).
The signage shall not exceed the requirements of the
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and shall require
approval and recommendation by the architectural
review process prior to approval by the Director.
The parking requirements shall include a maximum total
of two spaces for the residential unit, plus one space
per 200 square feet for the gross square footage of
the work area, less one space from the total (to
reflect the overlap of the resident and one employee).
The live/work units are subject to the development
standards of the PTOD zone outlined in Table 2 for a
100% residential development, except that the maxlmum
non-residential FAR is limited to 0.40.
The maximum size of a live/work unit shall be limited
to 2,500 square feet.
The design of street frontage ~of a live/work unit
shall be consistent with the context-based criteria
outlined for street frontage in Section 18.66.050
below.
A live!work unit may be converted to an entirely
residential unit where residential use on the ground
floor is not otherwise prohibited.
(c)Hotels
(i)Hotels for the purpose of this section are defined as
hotels, motels, or other lodging for which City of
Palo Alto transient occupancy tax is collected.
7
060920 syn 8260189
(2)Hotels may be constructed to a maximum FAR of 2.0 and
a maximum height of 50 feet.
(3)All hotels are subject to the context-based design
criteria outlined in Section 18.66.050 below.
(d)Parking Adjustments: Adjustments to the required parking
standards may be allowed with the Director’s approval
pursuant to the -provisions outlined in Section 18.83.120,
with the following additional allowances and requirements:
(i)For multi-family residential or mixed use projects on
sites rezoned to the PTOD combining district, the
Director may waive a portion of or all guest parking
requirements, and may waive any requirement to provide
a landscape reserve for parking, subject to the
following conditions:
(2)
(A)The project includes a minimum of 4 residential
units;
(B)The average residential unit size is 1,250 square
feet or less; and
(C)Not more than one parking space per residential
unit shall be assigned or secured, such that
other required parking spaces are available to
other residents and guests.
Projects providing more than 50% of the pro3ect
residential units at low or very-low income housing
rates may further reduce parking requirements by an
additional 20%.
(3)In no case, however, shall total parking requirements
for the site be reduced by greater than 30% from the
standard requirements, or by greater than 40% for an
affordable housing project consistent with (2) above,
or by more than 50% if housing for the elderly is
proposed pursuant to Section 18.83.120(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
(4)For any request for parking adjustments, the project
applicant shall indicate parking and traffic demand
measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and
trip generation. Measures may include, but are not
limited to: limiting "assigned" parking to one space
per residential unit, providing for Caltrain and!or
other transit passes, or other measures to encourage
transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program
shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the Director,
060920 syn 8260189
shall include proposed performance ,targets for parking
and/or trip reduction, and shall designate a single
entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.)
to implement the proposed measures. Monitoring reports
shall be submitted to the Director not later than two
(2) years after building occupancy and again not later
than five (5) years after building occupancy, noting
the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared
to the initial performance targets and suggestions for
modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or
trip reductions.
(e)Density, FAR, and Height Bonus Provisions
The following provisions are intended to allow for
increased density, FAR, heigh£, and other development
bonuses upon construction of additional below market rate
(BMR) housing units. The bonus allowances shall be allowed
subject to the following limitations:
(i)Bonuses are only applicable where below market rate
(BMR) units are provided in excess of those required
by Palo Alto’s BMR program as stated in Program H=36
of the Housing Element adopted on December 2, 2002.
Key elements of Program H-36 include:
(A)
(B)
(c)
Five (5) or more units: Minimum 15% of units must
be BMR units;
Five (5) or more acres being developed: Minimum
20% of units must be BMR units; and
BMR units shall meet the affordability and other
requirements of Program H-36 and the City’s BMR
Program policies and procedures.
(2 The following BMR bonuses shall be considered and may
be approved upon rezoning to the PTOD district:
060920 syn 8260189
(A)
(B)
Density Increase: Density may be increased above
the maximum base density allowed (40 units per
acre), such that at least 1 additional BMR unit
is provided for every 3 additional market rate
units constructed. The resultant density may not
exceed (50 units per acre). Density shall be
calculated based on the gross area of the site
prior to development.
FAR Increase: For projects with a residential
density greater than 30 units per acre, the
allowable residential FAR may be increased. The
(c)
(D)
FAR increase shall be equivalent to 0.05 for each
additional 5% (in excess of the City
requirements) of the total number of units that
are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed 50%
of the residential FAR prior to the bonus, and
may not exceed a total FAR of (1.5).
Height Increase: For projects with a residential
density greater than 30 units per acre,the
allowable project height may be increased.The
height increase shall be equivalent to one (i)
foot above the maximum for each additional 5%(in
excess of the City requirements) of the total
number of units that are proposed as BMR units,
but may not exceed a maximum height (50 feet).
Other incentives for development of BMR units,
such as reduced setbacks and reduced open space,
may be approved where at least 25% of the total
units constructed are BMR units and subject to
approval by the Architectural Review Board.
(3)The provisions of this section are intended to address
the density bonus requirements of State Law within the
PTOD District, and the maximum bonus density, FAR, and
height may not be further exceeded.
18.66.050 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) Combining District Context-Based Design
Criteria
(a)Contextual and Compatibility Criteria
Development in a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development Combining District shall be responsive to its
context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall
promote the establishment of a pedestrian and transit
oriented neighborhood.
(i)Context
(A)Context as used in this section is intended to
indicate relationships between the site’s
development to adjacent street types, surrounding
land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features,
such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to
these adjacent uses and features are strongly
reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies.
060920 syn 8260189
10
(B)The word "context" should not be construed as a
desire to replicate existing surroundings, but
rather to provide appropriate transitions to those
surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to
architectural style or design,- though in some
instances relationships may be reinforced by an
architectural response.
2 Compatibility
(A)Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale
and mass of new buildings is consistent with the
intent of achieving a pedestrian and transit
oriented neighborhood, and when new construction
shares general characteristics and establishes
design linkages with the overall pattern of
buildings so that the visual unity of the street
is maintained.
//
(B)Compatibility goals may be accomplished through
various means, including but not limited to:
i)the siting, scale, masslng, and materials;
ii)the rhythmic pattern of the street
established by the general width of the
buildings and the spacing between them;
iii)the pattern of roof lines and projections;
iv)the sizes, proportions, and orientations
of windows, bays, and doorways;
(v)the location and treatment of entryways;
(vi)the shadow patterns from massing and
decorative features; and
(vii) the treatment o2 landscaping
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
060920 syn 8260189
11
Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings
In addition to the findings for Architectural Review
contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinance,
the following additional findings are applicable in the
California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development Combining District, as further illustrated on
the accompanying diagrams:
(i)Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment
The design of new pro3ects shall promote pedestrian
walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and
connectivity through design elements such as:
A.Connectivity for
pedestrians and cyclists
with external and internal
(if any) streets,
pathways, or bike
facilities (Figure i-i) ;
B. Pathways and streezs that
present a clear hierarchy
and connectivity pattern
both within a pro3ect and
to adjacent sidewalks;
Figure i-I)
//
//
//
/ /
//
//
//
//
060920 syn 8260189
12
C.Wide sidewalks (built as
easements beyond the
property line if needed,
but not to the detriment
of existing or future bike
lanes) along Park
Boulevard to reinforce the
street as a primary
pedestrian and bicycle
linkage to the multimodal
station;
D.Bicycle amenizies that
contribute to the area’s
bicycle environment and
safety needs, such as bike
racks, storage or parking,
or dedicated bike lanes or
paths (Figure 1-2);
E. Ground floor uses that are
appealing to pedestrians
through well-designed
visibility and access
(Figure 1-2);
F.On primary pedestrian
routes such as Park
BOulevard and California
Ave., climate and weazher
protection where possible,
such as covered waiting
areas, building
projections and
colonnades, and awnings
(Figure 1-3);
i
Active ground floor
uses activate the stree~
(Figure 1-2
Awnings p~owcle
weatnerprolecllonano
createaPe c~est tlan Scale
Wide sldewall(s D~ovlde a
positive Dec~est~ian exped.
ence in front of retail uses
(Figure 1-3
Residential
Residential Commercial
(Figure i-4)
060920 syn 82613189
13
G.Streetscape or pedestrian
amenities that contribute
to the area’s streetscape
environment such as street
trees, bulb-outs, benches,
landscape elements, and
public art (Figures 1-4
and 1-5); and
H.Vehicle access from alleys
or sidestreets where they
exist, with pedestrian
access from the public
street.
8ulboutsincrease
pedestrlansa|ety
Minimize vehicle access
to provides a continuous
facade and street parking
(Figure I-5)
(2)Street Building Facades
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong
relationship with the sidewalks and the street(s), to
create an environment that supports and encourages
pedestrian activity through design elements such as:
A.Facade articulation
reflecting the rhythm of
nearby commercial and
residential areas such as
California Avenue;
B.Placemenz and orientation
of doorways, windows, and
landscape elements to
create strong, direct
relationships with the
street (Figures 2-1 and 2-
2);
C.Facades that include
projecting eaves and
overhangs, porches, and
other architectural
elements that provide
human scale and help
break up building mass
(Figures 2-1 and 2-2);
Orient doorway,, an~l
windows to create strong
relationship Io s|reet.
Clearly defined entries
float are proportional to
size o! building anu use,
(Figure 2-1)
060920 syn 8260189
14
D.Entries and windows that
face onto the street
(Figures 2-1. and 2=2);
E.Entries that are clearly
defined features of front
facades, and that have a
scale that is in
proportion to the slze of
the building and number of
units being accessed;
larger buildings should
have a more prominent
building entrance, while
maintaining a pedestrian
scale (Figures 2-1 and 2-
2); and
F.Residential units and
storefronts that have a
presence on the street and
are not walled-off or
oriented exclusively
inward.
windows 1o create slrong
;elationshiD to street.
Cleady defined entries
that are ~rooortional to
slz~ of building and use,
(Figure 2-2
(3)Massing and Articulation
Buildings shall be deslgned to minimize massing and provide
for articulation and design variety through elements such
as:
A.Buildings that include
pedestrian-scaled detail,
articulation and
craftsmanship of the
fagade (Figure 3-1);
B.Rooflines that emphasize
and accentuate significant
elements of the building
such as entries, bays, and
balconies (Figure 3-1);
enldes and bays
B utldlngs should p~’ovide pedest rian-scale d d et all,a r ticulatlon a nd c~a ft man shil~o ft he facade.
Figure 3-i)
060920 syn 8260189
15
C Corner buildings that
incorporate special
features to reinforce
important intersections
and create buildings of
unique architectural merit
and varied styles (Figures
3-2 and 3-3 ;
//
//
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Corner buildings should
be used to reinforce
ret all entry can ili’engthen
the corner.
(Figure 3-~2)
Co~ne~’buiidingsshouldbe
(Figure 3-3
060920 syn 8260189
16
D.Design with articulation,
setbacks, and materials
that minimize massing,
break down the scale of
buildings, and provide
visual interest from the
train and neighborhood
east of the tracks;
E.Limiting facades such that
no more than seventy
percent (70%), and no more
than 100t continuous linear
feet of the street fagade
exceeds a height of 25
feet (Figure 3-4);
F.Landscape elements to
buffer the rear of the lot
and the railroad tracks,
with trees spaced at a
maximum of 25 feet on
center and combined with
other landscape elements
such as fencing, hedges or
shrubs (Figure 3-4);
G. Application of daylight
plane requirements for R-I
and R-2 ad3acencies to
/"
/
Landscapeelementsshouldbeusedtocreate /a bu~erto ~he adjace~trai~road t~ack~.
No more |ban70 pe¢cent o| s~reet
facade should exceed 25 feet to provlae
for open vlew comoors Irom adjacent
neighborhood.
(Figure 3-4
A Eve foot land scape strip with trees planled ------/
at a maximum 25 feet on cemer, should be
used Io buffer building f¢orn adjacent trac~
/~---]he ~eat yard dayllgr~t plane defines setback
requgements aciJacenl to railroad. Dayi~ghl
plane has tnltlaJ he[gh! of 16 ft and a 45
oegree angle.
properzy boundaries (Figure 3-5
adjacent to the railroad
r~ght-of~way (Figure 3-5);
and
H.Maintaining v~ew corridors
from Colorado Avenue and
E1 Dorado Avenue west to
the hills.
060920 syn 8260189
17
(4)Low-Density Residential Transitions
Where new projects are built adjacent ~to existing lower-
scale residential development, care shall be taken to
respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties
through:
A.Transitions of development
intensity from higher
¯ density development
building types to building
types that are compatible
with the lower intensity
surrounding uses (Figure
4-1);
B.Massing and orientation of
buildings that respect and
mirror the massing of
neighboring structures by
stepping back upper
stories to transition to
smaller scale buildings,
including setbacks and
daylight planes that match
adjacent R-I and R-2 zone
requirements (Figure 4-2);
C. Respecting privacy of
neighboring structures,
with windows and upper
floor balconies
positioned so they
minimize views into
neighboring properties
(Figure 4-3);
existing future PTOD development
(Figure 4-1)
45 degree daylight plane
16’ailearyard, lO’atslde yard
(Figure 4,2
060920 syn 8260189
18
D.Minimizlng sight lines
into and from nelghboring
properties (Figure 4-3);
E.Limiting sun and shade
impacts on adjacent
properties;
F. Providing pedestrian
paseos and mews to create
separation between uses;
G, Design with articulation,
varied setbacks, and
materials that mlnimize
sound reflection to
nelghboring properties
adjacent to the railr6ad.
//
//
//
//
//
//
Figure 4-3)
Comblnatlon
hedges for
Scrl~nlng
060920 syn 8260189
19
(5) Project Open Space
Private and public open space shall be provided so that
iz is usable for the residents, visitors and/or
employees of a site.
A.The type and design of the
usable private open space
shall be appropriate to
the character of the~
building(s), and shall
consider dimensions, solar
~ccess, wind protection,
views, and privacy;
B. Open space should be sited
and designed to
accommodate different
activities, groups and
active and passive uses,
and should be located
convenient to the users
(e.g., residents,
employees, or public);
C. Common open spaces should
connect to the pedestrian
pathways and existing
natural amenities of the
site and its surroundings
(Figure 5-2);
D.Usable open space may be
any combination of private
and common spaces;
E.Usable open space does not
need to be located on the
ground (Figure 5-1);
F. Open space should be
located to activate the
street fagade and increase
"eyes on the street" when
possible (Figure 5-3);
G. Both private and common
open space areas .should be
buffered from noise where
feasible; and
H.Parking may not be counted
as open space.
Usable open 5pace may
be located on palklng
podiums
(Figure 5-1
Common open spaces
connect to the pedestria~
pathway~
Open space can be pro,
viewed in any combination
of orivate and comrno~
(Figure 5-2
Open space to be locate
to activate the facade
and increase’eyes on the
street"
(Figure 5-3
060920 syn 8260189
2O
(6)Parking Design
Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be
allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or
detract from the pedestrian environment, such that:
A.Parking is located behind
buildings, below grade or,
where those options are
not feasible, screened by
landscaping, low walls,
etc.;
B.Structured parking zs
fronted or wrapped with
habitable uses when
possible (Figure 6-1);
C. Parking that is semi-
depressed is screened
with architectural
elements that enhance the
streetscape such as
stoops, balcony
overhangs, and/or art
(Figure 6-2);
D.Landscaping such as trees,
shrubs, vines or
groundcover is
incorporated into surface
parking lots (Figure 6-3);
and
E.Street parking zs utilized
for visitor or customer
parking and is designed in
a manner to enhance
traffic calming on the
street.
Parking should be wrapp~ by habitable uses when possible.
(Figure 6-1)
Semi-depressed parktng can be used to raise residential uses to provide privacy and op-
portunities for stoops and porches,
(Figure 6-2)
Landscaelng should be Incorporated into any surface parking lots.
(Figure 6-3)
060920 syn 8260189
21
(7)Large (multi-acre) Sites
Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so
that street, block, and building patterns are consistent
with those-of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that:
A.New development of large
sites maintains and
enhances connectivity with
a hierarchy of public
streets, private streets,
walks and bike paths
(integrated with the Palo
Alto Bicycle Master Plan,
when applicable);
B. The diversity of building
types increases with
increased lot slze (e.g.,
<i acre : minimum 1
housing type; 1-2 acres :
minimum 2 housing types;
greater than 2 acres :
minimum 3 housing types)
(Figure 7-1); and
C.Where a site includes more
than one housing type,
each housing type should
respond to its immediate
context in terms of scale,
massing, and design (e.g.,
lower density building
types facing or adjacent
to existing single-family
residences (Figure 7-1).
Building type and scale should
relate to adjacent or Iut ure
Figure 7-1
Sites gfea~er than one acreshould haveatleast t wobulldlng
Sites greater than two acres
should have at lea~t three
060920 syn 8260189
22
(8)Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and
green building design should be incorporated into the
pro~ect. Green building design considers the environment
during design and construction. Green building design aims
for compatibility with the local environment: to protect,
respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable
buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable
and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled
content materials. The following considerations should be
included in site~and building design:
A.Optimize building
orientation for heat gain,
shading, daylighting, and
natural ventilation
(Figure 8-1);
B.Design landscaping to
create comfortable micro-
climates and reduce heat
island effects (Figure 8-
2);
C.Design for easy
Pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit access;
D.Maximize onsite stormwater
management through
landscaping and permeable
pavement (Figure 8-3);
E. Use sustainable building
materials.
F. Design lighting, plumbing
and equipment for
efficient energy use;
G.Create healthy indoor
environments;
W~lerSun
Use of Shading Devices to Control Solar roads
In Summer and gain Paaalve heat in Winter
(Figure 8-1)
’O~an Agriculture’ and rooftop/balcony gardens
(Figure 8-2
060920 syn 8260189
23
H.Use creativity and
innovation to build more
sustainable environments.
One example is
establishing gardens with
edible fruits, vegetables
or other plants to satisfy
a portion of project open
space requirements (Figure
8-2); and
I.Provide protection for
creeks and riparian
vegetation and integrate
stormwater management
measures and open space to
mlnimize water quality and
erosion impacts to the
creek environment.
Minimize Stormwater.Runoff to Impermeable areas
(Figure 8~3
c)
d)
e)
[Reserved] Diagra~ns to be Added
Historic Preservation
Historic resources review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of
Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is required for alterations
or modifications to any structure designated on the City’s
Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic
structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Municipal
Code or any contributing structure located within a locally
designated historic district. The Category 1 or Category 2
designation process for becoming a historic structure is
contained in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal
Code.
Performance Standards
All development subject to the PTOD District requirements
must also comply with the performance standards outlined in
Chapter 18.64 (Additional Site Development and Design
Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts),
pertaining to nolse, lighting, visual, and access impacts.
060920 syn 82613189
24
18.66.060 Review Process
Rezoning and review of a site to a Pedestrian and Transit
Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District shall be made
pursuant to the following procedures:
(a)Application to apply the PTOD overlay district may be made
by an owner of record of any property located or partially
located within the PTOD boundary, or may be initiated by
vote of the Planning and Transportation Commission or City
Council;
(b)Applications for rezoning shall be made and reviewed in
accordance with Chapter 18.98 (Amendments to Zoning Map and
Zoning Regulations), including Section 18.98.020 regarding
Changes in District Boundaries. Planning and Transportation
Commission review and City Council approval shall establish
limits on allowable or required uses (e.g., the types and
appropriate mix of uses, including revenue-generating uses)
and intensity (e.g., density, floor area ratio, height,
site coverage) of development. The specified limitations
shall be part of the rezoning and shall be recorded as
property restrictions enforceable by the City of Palo Alto.
Revisions to these restrictions requires rezoning through
the same process, except that the Director of Planning and
Community Environment may determine that a revision is
minor and does not materially alter the City Council’s
restrictions or intent regarding land use and intensity. As
used in this subsection, the term "minor" means a change
that is of little visual significance, does not materially
alter the appearance of previously approved improvements,
is not proposed to change the use of the land in question,
and does not alter the character of the structure involved.
If the cumulative effect of multiple minor changes would
result in a major change, a new application for approval of
a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development is required
and shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board,
Planning and Transportation Commission, and/or City
Council, as determined by the Director. Submittal
requirements for the PTOD Combining District may be
supplemented as determined by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment;
c)Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to
designate a site consistent with Transit Oriented
Residential Development shall be made and reviewed pursuant
to the provisions of Chapter 19.04.080 (Amendments to
Comprehensive Plan); and
25
060920 syn 8260189
Upon approval of rezoning of a property to Pedestrian
Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, the
project plans shall be submitted as a Major Architectural
Review to the Architectural Review Board, who shall review
the project for compliance with the Architectural Review
criteria specified in Section 18.76 of the Zoning Code, as
well as Section 18.66.050 of this Chapter. A single
preliminary review by the ARB may be allowed in advance of
rezoning approval if plans are submitted and reviewed prior
to Planning Commission consideration of the rezoning
request.
18.66.070 Non-conforming Uses and Non-Complying Facilities
Owners of sites with existing legal non-conforming uses and non-
complying facilities within the PTOD boundary may request the
application of the PTOD Combining District tO the site through
the rezoning process referenced in Section 18.66.060 above. In
applying the PTOD combining district, the use and/or facility
would then be subject to the PTOD overlay standards.
//
//
//
//
//
//
II
II
//
//
//
/7
060920 syn 8260189
26
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days
after the date of its adoption. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this ordinance or the Palo Alto Municipal Code, all
applications submitted prior to the effective date of this
ordinance shall be subject to. the PAMC Title 18 Zoning
Regulations in effect on the date the application is received by
the City.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: September ii, 2006
AYES:BARTON, BEECHAM, DREKMEIER, KISHIMOTO, KLEIN,
KLEINBERG, MOSSAR
NOES:CORDELL, MORTON
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~t~ttorney
City ~nager.~ ~
_~¢i~ecgor ~ Planning &
Communit/ Environment
060920 syn 8260189
27
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMENT H
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES BOARD HEARING
Draft Verbatim Minutes
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Regular Meeting - 8:00 AM
195 Page Mill Road and 2825, 2865, 2891, and 2901 Park Boulevard [05PLN-
00175]: Request by Court House Plaza Company for major Architectural Review
Board review of a 157,387-square-foot, three-story building that would include
50,467 square feet of ground floor Research and Development Space topped by
two levels of residential apartments totaling 84 units, plus a subterranean parking
garage and related site improvements. Zone District: GM.
Chair Kenneth Kornber.q: Chris, would you like to introduce this project?
Mr. Chris Riordan, Senior Planner: Yes. Good morning. The project before you
this morning was most recently rewewed by the ARB on June 1, 2006. The
Board continued the project to allow the applicant additional time to respond to
the following issues raised by the ARB during the hearing. The applicant has
submitted a written narrative responding to the Board’s comments that has been
included in the packet as Attachment E. The following is a brief synopsis of how
the submittal package has been modified since the previous review.
The Board requested that the applicant explore options to increase the number of
windows in the architectural differentiation of the building elevation that faces the
railroad tracks.
The Board also requested that the amount of daylight entering the rear anterior
corridors be increased. Four windows were added to the rear elevation to let
natural light into the interior corridors on the second and third levels.
The Board asked that the applicant provide colored renderings of the building
elevations. Colored renderings of both the Park Boulevard and Caltrain
elevations were included in the packet. The applicant has brought additional
renderings to the meeting.
The Board requested that the application include details and samples of the
exterior materials. Exterior details have been included and are contained in
pages A 8.1 through A 8.3 of the plan set. The applicant has also brought
material samples to today’s meeting.
The Board requested that the applicant consider additional architectural solutions
to enhance the appearance and improve the articulation of the lower level of the
Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road corner of the building. The plans have not
changed since the Board’s previous review.
The Board requested an illustrative colored landscape site plan of the proposed
landscaping along Park Boulevard. The colored landscape plan will be
presented by the applicant at today’s hearing.
The Board recommended the landscaping of the courtyard could be improved
with a better use of the space to provide amenities to the various occupants of
the building.
The Board also stated that the architecture of the building does not relate well to
the surrounding environment. The project should enhance the pedestrian
experience along Park Boulevard. No changes have been made to interior
courtyard or to the building to enhance the Park Boulevard pedestrian
experience. The applicant’s statement that there is not a distinct design theme in
the area of the project is included in the letter as Attachment E.
The Board stated that the R&D space on the ground floor with two levels of
residential uses above would limit the type of R&D uses. Conflicts could arise
with ducting and exhaust shafts for the R&D spaces. Air duct chases have been
added at each stairwell for the use of future R&D tenants on the first floor.
The Board requested that the photometric drawing should be submitted that
depicts an increased use of exterior lighting. A photometric drawing has been
included in the plan set as EP-I.
The Board stated that the noise from passing trains could be an impact on the
residential units on the sides of the project as well as those facing the interior
courtyard. As stated in the applicant’s response letter, the side residential units
will have sound glazing as recommended in the acoustical report.
As discussed in the report, the proposed project does not comply with the
requirements of the GM zone, since the mixed-use development is not a
permitted use in that zone. Also, the maximum allowable FAR in the GM zone is
0.5 as compared to the 1.5 FAR that is proposed. Attachment F in the staff
report is a comparison of how the project complies with the RM-30 development
standards for a mixed-use project in the GM zone.
Staff has recommended that the applicant revise the project to comply with the
P/TOD combining District criteria, which would accommodate the residential
density but would reduce the non-res portion of the project by half. Attachment G
compares the project to the standards adopted by the Council for the P/TOD
zoning. The P/TOD was adopted on first reading by the Council on July 24 of
this year. The Council’s second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for this
following Monday. At that meeting, Staff will request the Council initiate P/TOD
zoning for the subject property. The Planning Commission and the Council will
consider rezoning at a future date.
Two of the applicant’s three parcels are included in the City’s housing site
inventory that identifies potential sites that are suitable for residential
development. Anticipated zoning of these parcels is RM-40. Even though in
October of last year, the City Council removed housing as permitted use in the
GM zone, the City would be obligated to permit housing on these sites, since
they were included in that inventory. The two parcels that are on inventory could
yield 62 dwelling units with RM-40 zoning. The third parcel at the present time
would not permit housing, but Staff does believe that may be appropriate based
on earlier City-initiated rezoning to RM-40.
Senate Bill 1818 amended the State Density Bonus Program and became
effective in January of ’05. The law requires cities to offer incentives or
concessions in the form of relaxed development standards to encourage the
construction of affordable housing based on a project’s percentage of affordable
units. The project is proposing that 17% of the total residential units be
affordable, which qualifies for one concession. This city, as well as most other
cities, has not adopted programs or policies identifying what concessions or
incentives would be appropriate and the level of discretion available to the City
upon review. Staff believes that Palo Alto should not approve any project under
SB 1818 until Council policyis adopted regarding the City’s interpretation of this
legislation or at least without Council review of this project.
So in summary, Staff recommends that theARB recommend to the Director
denial of the project, because (1) the proposed mix of uses is not permitted, (2)
the project exceeds allowable FAR permissible in the GM zone, and the design
enhancement exception findings cannot be made for the requested exceptions
from Code regulations on height, daylight, plane setbacks, and. lot coverage.
Draft findings for denial are provided in Attachment A. Thank you.
Board Member Kornber.q: Thank you, Chris. I think we can probably proceed to
the presentation from the applicant. I don’t see a lot of members of the audience
who want to speak on this issue, so I think maybe after the applicant has made
his presentation, we can ask the staff and the applicant questions.
Mr. Harold Hohbach: I’m Harold C. Hohbach of the Court House Plaza
Company. Park Boulevard is still proposed as a rental project withrental BMRs,
which are very rare in Palo Alto because of the high cost of land. The mixed-use
concept is used for promoting a live-work environment for small start-up
companies. With respect to the design enhancement exceptions which we’re
asking for today, there are only three that do not meet the RM-40, and it is our
belief that since this is a mixed-use project, that has to be modified to
accommodate-the designs of a mixed-use project; therefore, we ask that you
approve these design enhancement exceptions, because we believe they are
very minor.
One apology I have to make, in the letter I sent yesterday, finding number 2, the
sentence was not completed, and I’m going to ask Chris Riordan to add my
handwritten additions to that finding. With that, I want to ask Richard Campbell,
the architect for the project, to address the architectural issues that the Board
raised in its last meeting on June 1.
Mr. Richard Campbell: Thank you. My name is Richard Campbell. I’m an
architect with Hoover Associates. We’re the architects for the project. As Chris
said, I think the staff report was pretty thorough. This project was presented on
the 1st of June. A number of issues were raised. We tried to answer most of
those issues with a letter that’s dated 30 August. That’s in your packet.
We also brought additional exhibits that we were asked to produce and help
explain the project. The exhibits that we brought are a colored material board.
Everybody can see that? What that shows are the exterior colors, the exterior
materials. There’s a light beige color, which is the base color for the project.
That color is accented with three brighter colors. The brighter colors are in small
areas and essentially in the recessed parts of the project, and on the back wall
they’re used in a design pattern, and those are all shown on the elevations that I
have here, which I realize are pretty far away for you to see. The elevations
were in your packet: the front elevation, the Park Avenue elevation, and the
Caltrain elevation. This shows the other two exterior elevations and all four
elevations in the courtyard to show the consistency of the use of color and
materials.
The metal panel that we show;we brought a larger.sample of that, which is over
against the wall. It’s a preformed metal panel, which we’re using as an accent,
both as a material change, a color change, and a texture change on the project.
The metal panels will be a color that you see on the right. On the left, we have
several panels that are in there that the color’s a little bit off, because Centria
couldn’t produce all the colors we want as quickly as we needed them. Looking
at that panel, the panel on the left actually occurs below, the panel on the right.
Up at the top of the project, there are two wide bands around the parapet and
then more closely spaced bands, and then the darker-colored bands, which
actually will be the more silver color used at the floor lines. So that’s the pattern
of the metal panels.
The selection of colors: I realize that’s very subjective, but this was the result of
getting all the architects in the office together and taking a vote, and in particular,
Julie Maser, who served on this ARB for a number of years. We thought that the
use of those colors with a nice base color and then the accents, somewhat
playful and interesting, and do accent the recessed areas on the project.
One other comment I’ll make has to do with the pedestrian-friendly comments
about Park Avenue. We have done something there which Lynn may explain a
little bit later if you’d like, but along Park Avenue, we have added benches° I
think they’re shown on the rendering. I think five benches have been added
along Park Avenue for pedestrians along with planting areas and that sort of
thing. So we have tried to do something on Park Avenue.
The comment about the expression of the corner of the building: What we’ve had
before was an increased height at the corner, and we do have an arcade at the
corner to make the corner a little bit more pedestrian-friendly and more
interesting. Also, something that we didn’t have at the last presentation but you
can see from the presentation today is we have added this brighter yellow color
at the corner, so we think the corner has been treated the way we feel is
appropriate, and we think the colors of the project, in our opinion, the opinion of a
number of architects in our office, are the correctcolors, and we think this project
is very appropriate for this area.
As far as the design motif, there really is no motif in this area. The adjacent
buildings really don’t set an architectural style that we’d like to follow, so we feel-
this is very contemporary and very appropriate for this location and a great
improvement to a really very blighted area, an underdeveloped area of Palo Alto.
So, do you have any questions?
Board Member Kornber.q: Do you want the landscape architect to make a
presentation, or should we...?
Mr. Campbell: I think, just if you have questions, if you’d like.
Board MemberKornber.q: The only area, was there some change on Park
Boulevard from what we saw last time?
Mr. Campbell: There were some minor planting changes. The planting areas
didn’t really change. We did add the concrete swishes with the benches and the
planters, I don’t know if you’ve seen that. Was that in the packet?
Board Member Kornber.q: Yeah, that was in the packet. Okay, thank you. Let’s
see, I have three cards. We could limit the Board to just questions of staff first,
but I think there may be some integration of the questions that we have for staff
and the applicant, so I would rather just go ahead and start with questions and
then after questions then open it up to public questions as well. Clare; would you
like to start?
Board Member Clare Malone Prichard: The second.and third floor plans facing
the railroad tracks seem to indicate more windows than what I’m seeing on the
elevations. Can you clarify exactly what you’re doing with the windows facing the
tracks?
Mr. Campbell: The windows facing Caltrain: There are four windows, which are
pretty clearly shown on the elevations. Those windows are at the end of the side
corridors, so they not only illuminate the ends of the side corridors but also the
corridor along Caltrain. We do have other windows along Caltrain, but they’re in
the offsets, so they don’t face the neighbors. That was one concession that the
neighbors felt was pretty important. They didn’t want the lights from the second
and third stories glaring into their homes. So those windows are in the offsets.
Board Member Prichard: So when I look at the floor plan, I’m actually seeing
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven windows facing Caltrain on the second and
third floor plans. Are those windows that just should have been deleted at some
point and were not?
Mr. Campbell: Those little tick marks, yeah, those are not windows, and I
apologize for that. I think in the layering, we did, in those locations, have window
symbols and those sort of things to identify them as windows, and it looks like a
layer didn’t get turned off, so there it is, but those are not windows. The
elevations are correct.
Board Member Kornberq: So there are no windows facing north, is that what
you’re saying?
Mr. Campbell: There are, and the windows in the end corridors, do you see the
schedule with the diamond with the E in it? Now if you look at those --
Board Member.Kornber,q: Just the two recesses, then.
Mr. Campbell: Yes, that’s correct.
Board Member Kornberq: The only two you see facing north are these two.
Board Member Prichard: Can you elaborate on what you’re doing with the
arcade from Park Boulevard along Page Mill? It was described in the letter, -but it
doesn’t show up very well on the plans.
Mr. Campbell: I need 2.1, is that?
Board Member Prichard: Yes, on A 2:1 between grid lines 4 and 5 near grid line
A. Is that the arcades that is being referenced in the letter?
Mr. Campbell: That’s an entry arcade into the courtyard, but there’s also an
arcade -- the corner of the building was pulled back, so we have an arcade
between grids 1.3 and 4, again, just to make a more interesting entrance into the
courtyard.
Board Member Prichard: There’s also mention of some Murano glass lighting in
that area. Did you provide any cut sheets or elevations of that?
Mr. Campbell: We didn’t, but those are cylinder-type lights, and they’re in the
overhead. I think they might be; I’m not sure if they’re shown on the photometrics
or not, but there will be overhead lights at the arcade there.
Board Member Prichard: There is something on the photometrics, [unintelligible]
Mr. Campbell: Yeah, it’s on the photometrics.
Board Member Prichard: I think the rest are -- well, one more for you. So is it
still true that from Park Boulevard, there are no entrances directly into any of the
individual spaces, it’s only at the main?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, that’s correct.
Board Member Prichard: Okay. The rest is for the landscape architect. Can you
clarify, because the drawings we got were quite small, can you describe what’s
going on with the swishes and the concrete and the seat walls along Park
Boulevard?
Landscape Architect: It was really an effort to take a design element from the
courtyard and bring it out to the Park Boulevard pedestrian area to get some
color, to have some amenity where people could sit and just enjoy the area as
well as adding cast stone planters with color just to try to create a little bit more
interest and texture.
Board Member Prichard: So how high will those cast stone planters be? They
sit on top of the bench; is that correct?
Landscape Architect: The top of the bench is 18 inches. The top of the pedestal
that the planter is sitting on is 24, and the planter is going to be about another 24
inches.
Board Member Prichard: So we’re looking at plants at close to eye level, then, as
you’re walking by.
Landscape Architect: Right.
Board Member Prichard: C: Screen planting that’s shown along the railroad
side. How fast do you anticipate those trees growing? They’re shown as fairly
mature trees on the elevations.
Landscape Architect: Hopefully very fast. That’s kind of relative. Obviously, the
first year, you’re not going to get a lot of growth. After that, we hope that we
could get 3 to 5 feet a year.
Board Member Prichard: And I think they’re mostly 24-inch boxes, so how tall is
that?
Landscape Architect: Eight to ten feet initially.
Board Member Prichard: That’s all I have. Thanks.
Board Member Kornberq: Thank you, Clare. David, do you have any
questions?
Vice Chair David Solnick: I have a couple of staff questions. When we were
reviewing the P/TOD overlay, my understanding was that the P/TOD zoning was
that the applicant could opt to use that or not. In this project, it appears that it’s
not going to be the applicant’s option, it would be the City’s option. So is that
correct? It actually isn’t just the applicant’s option; the City can force P/TOD
zoning.
Senior Planner Riordan: That is correct. As of this Monday meeting, as
mentioned in my presentation, the City will initiate requests from the Council of
P/TOD zoning on this parcel,
Board Member Solnick: Was that the original intent of the P/TOD? That’s not a
question just specific to this project, but was that the original intent of the P/TOD
zone?
Senior Planner Riordan: P/TOD original zoning was to be as you commented on
and optional, that the applicant could request. But the City does see that the
P/TOD zoning is very important on this parcel, and that’s why we’re-looking at
initiating the zoning for this piece.
Board Member Solnick: So will that then carry on into the future? So will it be
rewritten in some way that P/TOD will say that it’s not just the applicant’s option;
the applicant may not have a choice for other projects as well?
Senior Planner Riordan: I would assume that this would be the case in other
projects as well. If this were initiated on this project and this parcel, that it also
could be on others.
Board Member Solnick: It reminds me of when I was a kid andmy mother asked
me if I wanted to have braces, she said it would be up to me, and I said, ’~Nell,
you know what, I really don’t want them," and then she said, "You’re getting
them." Okay. There are a couple of other non-architectural questions. The
write-up mentions one concession, that the project has earned one concession,
but there was something, I think it was something from the applicant suggesting
two. Can you say anything about one versus two concessions?
Senior Planner Riordan: Well, the applicant’s conjecture is to lump all the DEs
into one concession. The DEs are one concession. We see them as all
individual, not linked, but individual app concessions. They seeit all as clumped
together.
Board Member Solnick: No one’s arguing that they get two concessions. It’s just
a question of what a concession contains.
Senior Planner Riordan: [unintelligible] interpretation of that. The City sees DEs
all being separate concessions. The applicant’s interpretation is that DEs are all
considered one concession and can be clumped together.
Board MemberSolnick: But they’re only entitled to one concession.
Senior Planner Riordan: Under SB 1818, given the current number of affordable
units, they are entitled to one.
Board Member Solnick: And is it correct that the one thing that’s not
controversial, I have to think, is the number of units. Is that correct? There’s no
issue on the number of units that they’re requesting.
Senior Planner Riordan: The number of units that they’re asking for, I agree, is
not controversial, because the number of units that would be allowed under the
40 dwelling units per acre on all three parcels would-be in excess of what the
applicant is requesting. So it’s not the density that’s an issue.
Board Member Solnick: A couple of questions about the findings for denial.
Some of them mention compatibility with the immediate environment, and that
immediate environment includes the opposite site of Alma Street. That would be
roughly equivalent to a project on University having to conform to the context on
Everett. Why is that distance being applied to this project?
Board Member Prichard: That’s a good question, and I think this was a group
effort in terms of writing the findings. Definitely, we’ve heard from the neighbors
across Alma, and they’ve been very much a part of the process, and they’re
concerned with the existing Agilent building and the lighting and the blockage of
the hills and all this stuff, so that’s where that kind of entered in, is that
considering people across Alma, because it’s such a visible location from those
residences that it’s considered visually a part of the neighborhood, althoUgh
you’re right, you wouldn’t walk from one to the other, so in that context, it’s not an
immediate part of the neighborhood, but visually, it is to be considered.
Board Member Solnick: Is that the criterion for context, that anybody who can
see a project must be included in its contextual development? Any site that can
see a project? Is there a criterion? In other words, what is the criterion, then? It
seems to me if that’s the criterion, we’re going to have a lot of problems, if seeing
something is all that is required.
Board Member Prichard: I think when it comes to edges, edge conditions, one
type of zone to another, that it probably comes more into play than, say,
downtown, where everything’s a bit blended, so yes, you’re not going to go
looking to Everett from University, because there’s a lot of buildings in between.
It’s not really as much of an edge condition except when you get right between
Everett and the residential area.
Board Member Solnick: Then in principle, if there’s nothing in between Site A
and Site B and you can see it, no matter how far it is, that could still be
considered context, if that’s the criterion. I just am not sure where this level of
context is going, and not just for this project but for future projects.
Board Member Prichard: I think it bears discussing, and probably a retreat would
be a good place to take it up in the larger sense of how we define context.
Board Member Solnick: And one more question on the findings is that you said
there are no exceptional extraordinary circumstances. Being on Caltrain would
not be applicable to this property that is not true for other similarly zoned
properties. Wouldn’t being on Caltrain be somewhat unusual for a GM? This is
under the Design Enhancement Exceptions, that’s right.
Board Member Prichard: Well, it isn’t the only project along Caltrain, so there are
a number of other projects along the long tracks that would have the similar types
of restrictions, being close to the train.
Board Member Solnick: But it isn’t typical for a GM.
Senior Planner Riordan: I’d say it’s not typical, but not atypical either.
Board Member Prichard: If you look at the GM area at the south part of the town
around San Antonio Road, a lot of GM is down there, so I guess we’re comparing
this GM area to that GM area.
Board Member Solnick: I wanted to ask questions about materials. The spaces
on the ground floor facing the street, are those -- I guess they’re windows, I
guess they kind of look like garage doors in the elevation, but I guess they’re
storefront windows. And those are not to be customized for the use of the space,
depending on...? You don’t know at this point what size space it’s going to be,
whether it’s a little [unintelligible] whether people want access to the street,
whether they don’t. Is this just a placeholder at this point, or is this the way it’s
intended to be built?
Mr. Campbell: Right now it’s the way it’s intended to be built, but one feature
about those windows, both on the courtyard side and on the exterior is that they
can be traded out for a storefront with doors, so if there was a tenant that insisted
on an entry on Park Boulevard, we could accommodate that. Of course, that’s up
to the owner negotiating with the tenant, but we picked a systematic placement of
windows. We assume that whatever tenant would be in there, they would want a
lot of natural light, so it’s a predetermined...
Board Member Solnick: The opening is predetermined.
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
Board Member Solnick: [unintelligible] the size of the opening.
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
Board Member Solnick: When you say, insisted on having a door, is that
something that you suggested they’d have to fight for it. Is there some reason
why you wouldn’t want...
Mr. Campbell: What I’m saying, it would not be up to me, it would be up to the
owner if a tenant said, "1 want a major entrance on Park Boulevard." What I’m
saying is thatthe way the project’s designed, we could do that. It would be
possible. But as far as permission, that’s up to the owner.
Board Member Solnick: The reason I’m asking this question is, I’m talking about
enlivening that street-level elevation, and one way to do it is, obviously, you can
do things like put benches in and things, but another way to do it is to actually let
the units do it by being different from one another because they have different
tenants, and so on and so forth, and so instead of it being a generic storefront,
that it might actually create its own individuality, and so I’m trying to get an idea
of whether that’s something that could happen. I guess my question is whether
that is something that might happen and might even come back to the ARB once
you had tenants. It might even be under construction at that point, but before
you had a CO.
Mr. Campbell: As far as could happen; yes~ it certainly could happen. If this
were one large tenant, I suspect they’d want sort of a uniform appearance for
their spaces, but if it’s multiple tenants, they might each want a different look for
their space, and it’s possible to do that. Right now we just don’t have a sense of
what the tenants are going to be.
Board Member Solnick: But you’re not opposed to reviewing that?
Mr. Campbell: Sure. Yes.
Board Member Solnick: On the siding, there are three different reveals.
Mr. Campbell: That’s correct.
Board Member Solnick: Why so many?
Mr. Campbell: Why so many?
Board Member Solnick: Yeah.
Mr. Campbell: We thought we’d break it up. You know, it’s a pretty tall vertical
panel, we just wanted to break it up. We wanted to differentiate the floor lines, so
those are the 8-inch. Actually, there’s a 4-inch spacing, an 8-inch spacing, and a
12-inch spacing, and when we first designed this, we had everything on the 4-
inch spacing, and we thought we could add some interest by differentiating floor
lines with the 8-inch panels, and then it. looked a little bit unusual to have this 4-
inch system just sort of disappear at the roof line, so up at the roof line, we’ve
used the two 1-foot panels. So it’s just a design decision to break it up.
Board Member Solnick: Windows. Do you have anything about what the
windows are? Are they all storefronts?
Mr. Campbell: The windows onto the first floor are all storefront. The windows
up above are going to be --
Board Member Solnick: And what finish are those?
Mr. Campbell: It’ll be a white finish. We haven’t --
Board Member Solnick: [unintelligible] what you’re thinking about [unintelligible]
Mr~ Campbell: Yes. Thanks, Ken.
Board Member Kornber,q: [unintelligible] I can’t read the labels.
Board Member Solnick: Okay, I see that. And what about the upper two floors?
Mr. Campbell: They’re extruded vinyl. And actually what you’re seeing on the
sample board would be the upper floors. It’s an extruded vinyl window. We’ve
talked to several companies about that, but until we get into the detailed pricing
and contractor selection, it’ll be an extruded vinyl, integral color.
Board Member Solnick: Of roughly the same color.
Mr. Campbell: Yes. That is the color, yes.
Board Member Solnick: Guard rails. I didn’t see a detail, really. That’s one
question. I think there are two types of guard rails, aren’t there? Isn’tthere one
up at the pool and then the more...
Mr. Campbell: The pool guard rail; they’re glass panels. It’s not a guard rail.
The guard rails that occur on all the balconies are the galvanized metal. There’s
a small sample on the board as well, but they’re galvanized metal, and it’ll be a
picket-type railing.
Board Member Solnick: Well, the one at the pool is a guard rail, I mean, it’s just
a solid guard rail.
Mr. Campbell: That’s correct.
Board Member Solnick: But you don’t have anything more about those.
Speaker: The material at the base must be.. Maybe you could actually come up,
if we can find that [unintelligible], and point to these materials and tell us where
they are, because with my glasses, I can’t read it.
Mr. Campbell: Is this on?
Board Member Solnick: I understand where the stucco and the metal panel on
the window is going, I guess it’s those three samples and yes, where your hand
is.
Mr. Campbell: There are two base materials on the project. This base material,
which is a black granite, is used on the two street frontages. It’s used on Park
Boulevard, it’s used on the Page Mill extension. This material here is intended to
give the same appearance, but it’s a Dryvit with an integral black color, and that’ll
be used on the base along Caltrain and towards European Auto. So this is the
base that’s used.
Board Member Solnick: That’s sort of the lesser expensive material for the part
that’s not being seen.
Mr. Campbell: It’s much less expensive. This material here is used on the wall
behind the fountain. This same color, we don’t have it on the sample board, but
this same color in a honed finish, is also used on the floor of the fountain, the
pattern that surrounds the fountain. Did that answer?
Board Member Solnick: And that’s just a little reveal, stucco reveal in there, is
that what that is? The one below the white stucco?
Mr. Campbell: This is the galvanized. That’s the galvanized metal for the
railings. [unintelligible]
Board Member Solnick: The rails, is that what you said?
Mr. Campbell: For the guard rails, will be galvanized metal. Should I stay up
here, or...
Board Member Solnick: No, that’s okay. The base material, actually, now that I
realize that’s the base material down there on the first floor, so the windows don’t
go to the ground, but you’d still be willing to put doors in. I mean obviously, if
there were doors, they would have to go to the ground, so that’s still an option,
right? It takes a couple seconds to warm up.
Mr. Campbell: Is this on now? The way we would replace doors, those walls are
not concrete; they’re framed, so we would be able to cut the openings.
Board Member Solnick: The portion of the wall below that is framed?
Mr. Campbell: That’s correct.
Board Member Solnick: The light fixtures, you mentioned some, it sounds like
those are in the soffits, some down lights in the soffit.
Mr. Campbell: That’s correct.
Board Member Solnick: Are there any lights on Park Boulevard on the building?
Mr. Campbell: No. There are lights around the fountain to illuminate the
fountain. There are lights in the soffits of the arcades, including the arcade that
goes, the driveway that goes below the building, but there’s no lights shining up
on the building.
Board Member Solnick: And you didn’t want to light the building at all?
Mr. Campbell: We felt we didn’t. You know, they’re residential units. If it were
an office building or something, we might, but they’re residential, we didn’t think
we wanted to shine lights up onto the balconies and into the windows, so no, it’s
not lighted.
Board Member Solnick: I just had a couple of smallquestions about the bike
lockers, right when you pull into the courtyard. I haven’t seen any good-looking
bike lockers yet myself.
Mr. Campbell: Neither have we.
Board Member Solnick: So then why are they there?
Mr. Campbell: Well, they’re required. They’re there because --
Board Member Solnick: No; I know they’re required, but why are they there?
That’s not, why do you have them, but it’s such a visible Io_cation?
Mr. Campbell: At the location?
Board Member Solnick: Yeah.
Mr. Campbell: We put them back near where we have showers and lockers,
feeling that a lot of people, if they’re riding their bike recreationally at noon or
whatever, they’d want to shower, or if they ride some distance to get to work,
they’d want to be close to the showers and lockers, so that’s why they’re back
there. Also, we felt like --
Board Member Solnick: People who ride bikes usually can walk-a little bit,
though.
Mr. Campbell: But that’s the reason we put them there in that location. And I
believe that these type lockers to have to be out in the open. I think, as I recall,
that’s in the zoning. But these are Type 1 lockers. It’s the big box, it’s not just
something in your office that you can lock a bike tight to it.
Board Member Solnick: Yeah, I know. That’s what worries me. You have them
in the garage as well. Do some have to be out in the open like this in addition to
the ones in the garage? What are the rules?
Board Member Prichard: I can jump in on that. Our Transportation Staff like
them to be easily accessible and not in the garage. I know there are some down
there, but--
Board Member Solnick: Now, is that true of the bike -- do the ones that are
visible -- I agree with that, actually, but do the ones that are visible have to be
lockers, or can they be racks?
Board Member Prichard: There should be both represented at the surface level
in accordance with the Transportation Staff, but you can have your
recommendation on that.
Board Member Solnick: Okay. The transformers, also quite visible near the
entry and located in a way that does not relate to the geometry of the site plan.
Can you say anything about those?
Mr. Campbell: Only that we met a number of times with utilities people about
location of transformers, and this was the one that seemed to work best. We
tried to put them in other locations. In fact, we tried to put them at one point even
down in the garage, but they wouldn’t allow it. They had to be much more
accessible than that. In fact, they have to be completely accessible, and we
looked at locations in front of the building, which we felt were inappropriate, so
this was an attempt to get them off of Park Boulevard and --
Board Member Solnick: Did you look at any other locations in the courtyard
besides right when you drive in?
Mr. Campbell: We haven’t. We could. This location, they’re almost directly
above where we have the electrical room in the basement, so we wanted to
maintain a short run to the electrical room in the basement.
Board Member Solnick: And how are you enclosing them, or not? Shroud, no?
Mr. Campbell: Let me get my drawing here. We could probably put some kind of
an enclosure there. We’re not showing anything. I know that the accessibility is
a big issue about coming in with PG&E coming in or the City of Palo Alto coming
in with a truck and lifting these off the pad and so on. Right now, we’re not
showing an enclosure.
Board Member Solnick: There’s nothing that says they have to be parallel to the
street. They could conform to your geometry.
Mr. Campbell: They certainly could. As long as they’re very accessible, that’s
the requirement.
Board Member Solnick: That’s all my questions for now. Thank you.
Board Member Kornber.q: Thanks, Steven. Judith, do you have questions?
Board Member Judith Wasserman: Very few. I should disclose that I met with
the applicant in my office last week.
Male Speaker: Me, too.
Board Member Kornber.q: Me, three.
Board Member Wasserman: I just have really very few questions. One, I just
wanted to follow up on David’s question about transformers. I have a question
for the staff about this accessibility of the transformers so that a truck can come
in and lift them up. How often does that happen?
Mr. Campbell: I would say that’s extremely rare, but the accessibility of
transformers has more to do with their standard maintenance. They have to turn
them off before they can work on them, and they open the door and insert a
rather pole that they turn a switch off, then once that happens, then they can
probe the transformer to do maintenance.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay, so--
Mr. Campbell: But I think the actual replacement of the transformer other than its
original placement would be rare.
Board Member Wasserman: So the transformer could be on the back side of the
building.
Board Member Riordan: As long as it’s accessible by utilities and they are in
agreement on its location, I would say that would be true.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay. I had a question about the tower. I was
looking at the model, which I find kind of interesting, and the tower in the corner -
- my question is, had you considered making it larger? It seems to be somewhat
small in proportion to the building in footprint more than in height. It looks like of -
Mr. Campbell: We certainly could, and one thing, Judith, this was a massing
model, and I’m sure all of you have been in the position where you start making a
massing model and then you wonder, "When do I stop with the detail?"
Board Member Wasserman: Well, no, that’s a massing question.
Mr. Campbell: Yeah, I understand, and yes, we could make it taller.
Board Member Wasserman: No, wider.
Mr. Campbell: A larger footprint? We can make a larger footprint. This was the
footprint that was required by our mechanical engineer.
Board Member Wasserman: I see.
Mr. Campbell: We definitely could make it larger.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay, so the tower could have a little more
presence.
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay. My other question has to do with this
Mondrian color concept. Aside from the fact that you have primary colors, what
about this color design has anything to do with Mondrian?
Mr. Campbell: Well, it started out with a pattern on the back side, which was a
very linear and rectangles and squares and so on, and then we just added the
primary colors. We did find a Mondrian print that’s very close to the colors we’re
using. I think most of us think of Mondrian with a white and then accents black
and accents like that and some colors, but there is a Mondrian print that we saw
that has very similar colors. We’re not really trying to sell this as a Mondrian
painting. That was sort of the inspiration for what we did.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay. So you’re looking for color accents and
some kind of color field composition.
Mr. Campbell: That’s correct.
Board Member Wasserman: How did you end up with primary colors, Which is a
pretty unusual solution for a building of this scale.
Mr. Campbell: Of course, as you all well know, colors are really subjective. We
tried a number of different schemes. We tried one scheme that was very muted,
and we thought it didn’t have enough interest. This was the one when we looked
at a number of different schemes. We used a color that was sort of a green color
and different colors, and in the final analysis, we thought the use of the primary
colors made sense with a muted background. And again, I know its very
subjective on colors. They say you ask four architects, and you’ll get five
opinions on colors.
Board Member Wasserman: Yes, and you seem to have done that.
Mr. Campbell: We did.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay. I think those are all my questions. I’m
questioned out on this one. Thank you.
Board Member Kornberq: Thanks, Judith. Grace, do you have questions?
Board Member Grace Lee: I dohave a few. My first is for staff. I just want to
confirm, we have this P/TOD map, and obviously this sits right here within the
boundary, and it looked like on the previous staff report that staff had passed on
the context-based design standards and guidelines to the applicant to consider
and incorporate into the design on the applicant’s side, and this is just for
clarification, there’s a choice not to apply these design guidelines. Is that a fair
summary, would you say, into the two packages we’ve received?
Mr. Campbell: That was a question for me or for staff?
Board Member Lee: Probably for staff and then for you. Amy, or...
Ms. Amy French, Mana.qer of Current Plannin,q: I would say that’s a fair
characterization. We have encouraged P/TOD standards, and the applicant
has...
Board Member Lee: And on the applicant’s side, would you agree that’s the
case?
Mr. Campbell: Right.. This project was started long before there was.even a
suggestion of a P/TOD ordinance, and the design materialized based on whatwe
felt was the proper design for the site from our analysis of site conditions, and
when the P/TOD came up, our first decision was to choose not to use it, which
was offered to us.
Board Member Lee: However, just in looking at this design standard, there’s just
some of the things that might apply to a more pedestrian-friendly environment or
streetscape design. You did actually go through and begin to try to apply those
based on our comments.
Mr. Campbell: We did. We’ve gone through the P/TOD. In fact, we went
through it to analyze where we had some variances with what the P/TOD said,
and there are some. There certainly are some.
Board Member Lee: Okay. I’m just going to refer, to your letter that responds to
our comments. My first question relates tothe Caltrain side, and I’m looking at
the elevations. It relates to the tree planting, and I think there was a comment
that the planting appears to be random, there are large spaces in between the
trees, and in your response, you talk about not desiring a screen for that area.
Can you elaborate? Are you not wishing to add more trees to provide a more
regular rhythm of tree planting because there is not sufficient room, since there is
a zero-foot setback at that location? Is that because there’s just no space to
plant trees, or is it more on a design side, that you wish to have a more random
arrangement? I just don’t see a sufficient answer to that comment.
Mr. Campbell: The trees are planted on a 10-foot easement from Caltrain, so the
space is there. I probably should let Lynn respond to this, but I think the feeling
was that rather than just providing a uniform screen for the entire length of the
project, it would be more interesting if it was somewhat.random.
Board Member Lee: Okay, so it is a design proposition, that you’d rather this
Mondrian treatment come through rather than a screen of trees?
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
Board Member Lee: Okay. On that same facade, there was significant
discussion last time about the importance of windows or daylight for the corridor
in the back, and I just want to confirm that you are choosing not to add any
windows on corridors that break up into 90-foot lengths so that they will just
receive through the small window morning --
Mr. Campbell: Well, the windows are 6 by 6, so they’re pretty good sized.
Board Member Lee: Okay, but the length of the corridor where there’s no light,
it’s dark, would be 90 feet three times, so is this just a concession to the
neighbors? I know that a couple of members discussed the importance of
daylight and how comfortable that would be for residents. It sounded like you
decided to go the other route because concerns from the residents?
Mr. Campbell: Yeah. It was trying to respond to the neighbors’ concerns. We
did feel we wanted light in those corridors, but you’re right about the 90 feet.
There’s light in the offset here. These are the windows in the ends of the
corridors, but there’s an offset here, there’s an offset here, an offset here, and an
offset here, and around the corner, each of those offsets has a 6 by 6 window.
Board Member Lee: Okay. And then in terms of the retail on the ground floor, I
believe there were a couple of comments last time, and I know that this was
abandoned early on, but at one point, did you show any plans that investigated
the possibility of a small retail situation on the corner of Page Mill and Park?
Mr. Campbell: We did.
Board Member Lee: Has that ever been in the design?
Mr. Campbell: We did, Grace. Very early in the project, we were identifying a
space in the corner for commercial, and I think the feeling was like a deli or
something likethat, but we decided with California Avenue as close as it was,
that it really probably didn’t make sense.
Board Member Lee~ And then for clarification, in the courtyard, the previous
design to this design has not changed. It’s the same landscape design for the
courtyard, the fountain? There’s still no tables, chairs, or any seating?
Mr. Campbell: We’re not showing those, but of course, there’s height-scape
where those could be put in. We’re not showing those yet, but certainly --
Board Member Lee: The only seating that you show is on Park along the
sidewalk, it seems.
Mr. Campbell: Yeah, I just wanted to confirm. There’s a seat wall, this planted
area, this sort of an arch, is a seat wall. So there is some seating, but I think if
people wanted to put out tables and chairs and so on, that’s probably something
that would result with the tenants going into the building.
Board Member Lee: And regarding the addition of seating on the Park Boulevard
site, I’m just looking how that corner and this comment regarding pedestrian-
friendly, and it looks like you’ve added the arcade at the pedestrian level at the
corner, which is along Page Mill, and that’s 11 feet 8 inches, the module width.
Did you ever consider bringing these swishes, what you call swishes, with the
seating on Park to kind of wrap that corner and begin to interact with the Page
Mill fa(;ade? I mean, there’s very little going on at the street level that is
pedestrian-friendly, and I’m wondering about lighting under the arcade? It’s
going to be a dark corner at night, there’s no seating, and what purpose it serves.
Mr. Campbell: The arcade does have the lights up in the soffit.
Board Member Lee: Okay.
Mr. Campbell: That are shown on the photometric. But there’s no seating out
there, and I just turned around to Lynn, I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t
certainly look at putting something around the corner.
Board Member Lee: And then this issue that David brings up in terms of access
from Park Boulevard. I just wanted to hear the rationale behind turning the
building so inward-looking rather than outward on the street in terms of awnings
or things that would enliven that Page Mill and Park street facade that is south-
and west-facing. Did you explore awnings or things that would control sun and
shade, threshold entry? I don’t believe we’ve seen any elevations, and also on
the upper balconies, anything that breaks up the scale of those, the doors. Have
you explored the use of awnings or done a daylight study of the south and west
side?
Mr. Campbell: We have not.
Board Member Lee: Okay. Those are all my questions. Thanks.
Board Member Kornber,q: Thanks, Grace. I have a few questions. Maybe I’ll
start with the applicant. When this project was first presented to us, it was
presented that the first floor was R&D space and the applicant said they had a
tenant at that point, but I was wondering what kind of tenant you’re looking for
right now or expecting to have right now in the R&D space?
Mr. Campbell: I’m going to ask Harold to respond to that.
Mr. Hohbach: Well, that’s a tough question to answer. I had one prospective
tenant who was interested in the entire space, which was not my idea. I’d like to
have multiple start-up companies, smaller ones, but they couldn’t wait for the
project, and they’ve moved to Mountain View. I think Palo Alto lost a great
opportunity there, but I see what’s coming up now? I see a lot of internet-based
companies, start-ups, they are starting out, they all have different ideas, and I
have a couple of those smaller ones already in the office buildings I have, but I
still like medical R&D. I love medical device companies, I love those types of
companies as well as R&D they could help me at some time, and I would like that
part of the industry. I have several contacts in that area that they said they if we
might get space, they would certainly consider it. So that’s one type of thing, and
then the internet-based companies, I think we have to look at that. Right now, I
don’t have any inclination that I get a biotech company. I’d like to have a biotech
company, but I don’t know if that’s going to work. We have to wait and see. And
with respect to the entrance on the courtyard, I would hope that we have small
start-up companies that would all have the entrances into the courtyard and not
have to cut into Park Boulevard, but I think we have to face, then, if we have
some tenants insist we have to have a Park Boulevard entrance, then I think we
should come back to the ARB and reconsider that.
Board Member Kornberq: So if you’re expecting the tenants to all enter from the
interior courtyard, is there visitor spacing, or you expect that they would park in
the garage and then the visitors would come and park in the courtyard?
Mr. Hohbach: Yes. I know if l discussed the blanket plan I have is, we’re going
to assign one parking space to each residential unit.
Board Member Kornber,q: In the garage.
Mr. Hohbach: In the underground garage. It’s all underground.
Board Member Kornber,q: Okay.
Mr. Hohbach: And then the other plan is to have the other ones be floating
spaces for the tenants and, during the day, the tenants from the apartments,
most of them drive and go to work, and they vacate the spaces, so that’s where
we’d put the R&D tenant spaces in there, so they’re sure of that space. We’d
assign one space for each unit.
Board Member Kornberq: How many units are there?
Mr. Hohbach: Thirty-four.
Board Member Kornberq: And then how many parking spaces in the garage?
Mr. Hohbach: Three hundred ninety-six. I should know that, but...
Board Member Kornber.q: So one would be assigned, and then the others are for
guests of the residents and the tenants.
Mr. Hohbach: Guests would use visitor parking only would be up, because we
cut the parking down on the first level down to an absolute minimum to visitor
parking. That’s to be for visitor parking for the residents and for the R&D.
Board Member Kornber.q: Okay.
Mr. Hohbach: Otherwise they all have to park down below.
Board Member Kornber.q: So you would lease parking spaces to the tenants of
the R&D space as well, a certain number to each --
Mr. Hohbach: No, we’re not assigning it. My plan is not to assign any to the
R&D.
Board Member Kornber.q: Okay, thank you. Maybe you’re familiar with this,
because you’ve been developing the area. Are there any other combined R&D
and residential buildings in Palo Alto or in ....
Mr. Hohbach: I’ve been asked that question before, and the answer is no. I have
experience, because I have tenants living in my apartment buildings and they
work in the area that love, in fact, we have one person here today who’s going to
talk about that. He loves the idea of being able to work and live in the same
space. And I’ve had a lot of start-up companies in my buildings, and the
tendency is they all work long, long hours, and they’d love to be able to live
where they work, and that’s where this idea came about, and I think it’ll work in
Palo Alto. Palo Alto’s a very innovative place, and I think this is a place we can
make it work and be good for everybody.
Board Member Kornberq: Okay. I have questions for the architect, also. The
material board we’re looking at, is this Dryvit or is this plaster, or what are you
actually proposing?
Mr. Campbell: It’s Dryvit.
Board Member Kornberq: So the entire building is Dryvit?
Mr. Campbell: That’s correct.
Board Member Kornberq: My plans, and I don’t know whether don’t have the
latest, but it says, "stucco," on every elevation.
Mr. Campbell: Well, it’s a stucco type of material, but it is Dryvit. It is Dryvit.
We’re using that partly because there’s the new energy requirements require that
we have to put something outside of the stud wall system, so of course, the
Dryvit is an insulation material as well. So there’s a technical reason for using
Dryvit.
Board Member Kornber,q: Have you ever used Dryvit on a base on a building?
Mr. Campbell: We have. You know, you have to use an additional layer of armor
cloth, but we’ve used it. We did a project at Stanford, the Keck Science Building,
probably 25 years ago, and it has Dryvit right down to the ground, but it has an
additional armor cloth. We researched Dryvit a lot before we used it the first
time, and we’ve seen many buildings where you can see where the lawnmower
kept hitting the base of the building, so we understand the problems, and we
think we’ve solved them. We never had problems, knock on wood, with a Dryvit
building. We’ve done a number of them.
Board Member Kornber.q: So the drawings are not correct; you’re proposing
Dryvit as your material.
Mr. Campbell: Right. Yeah. I think what we’re indicating, Ken, is a stucco
appearance, but it is Dryvit there.
Board Member Kornber.q: You had said in your response; I don’t know if I’m
going to be able to find it, but there was a comment made on one of the earlier
hearings that we were worried about the amount of dust and soot that comes
from the trains, and your response was, well, we have a heavy plaster finish that
can be pressure-washed frequently. Have you done frequent pressure washing
of Dryvit?
Mr. Campbell: Well, if you say, have we done? No, we haven’t, but I know it’s
been done on buildings that we’ve designed, and again, probably for us, the best
test case has been the building at Stanford, that’s been there since 1986, the
Keck Science Building. We also did a large administration building at Pomona
College, which has Dryvit, and it has worked. We’ve used it a number of times.
We’re not aware of any problems with the cleaning of it.
Board Member Kornberq: Okay. The reason I’d asked earlier about the tenants,
and I brought this up at the last meeting, is my concern about R&D is that you
end up needing more mechanical, sometimes, and so you put in the exhaust
shafts, which I think will be helpful. Were the exhaust units and all of the exhaust
fans, is there any screen that you’re proposing, or that should just be done as the
units --
Mr. Campbell: It would really be done as the units are placed. Our assumption
is that this won’t be heavy in the kind of R&D that requires fume hoods and that
sort of thing, but we have put in the capability of running multiple fume hoods up
at the four stair wells and then putting on the roof whatever kind of an exhaust
fan would be required, and if it’s large enough, yes, we probably would screen it
somehow. Also, one other thing we did is we’ve asked the structural engineer to
make sure that we can handle those kinds of weights in those locations, so we’ve
anticipated that it may happen, but we expect that there won’t be many fume
hoods on this project or exhaust requirements.
Board Member Kornber,q: What did the structural engineer do?
Mr. Campbell: I’m sorry?
Board Member Kornber.q: What did the structural engineer do?
Mr. Campbell: Just increased the loads, the roof loads in those areas, localized
areas.
Board Member Kornber,q: But if you had to put a unit on there, you’d have to
take care of the acoustic vibration problems.
Mr. Campbell: We would. We’d have to put on some kind of a housekeeping
pad, probably, and acoustical isolators, certainly.
Board Member Kornber.q: I had a question about the daylight plane diagram that
you sent us. Again, I’ll have to look for it. No, I’m sorry, it was another one.
Mr. Campbell: It’s an attachment to the letter of the 30th of August?
Board Member Kornber,q: Yeah, that’s the one. I folded this sheet back so I
could find it, and now I can’t find it. You’re measuring a 45-degree angle from a
point 15 feet above something. Is that the property line?
Mr. Campbell: It’s an easement line.
Board Member Kornber.q: So isn’t that normally done from the property line?
Mr. Campbell: I would say it is. You know, our suggestion was it would be taken
from an easement line
Board Member Kornber.q: Then this is the landscape easement on the Caltrain
property?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, that’s correct.
Male Speaker: May I inject, staff would not evaluate it this way. Is this the
drawing that you’re referring to right here?
Board Member Kornberq: Yeah.
Male Speaker: It’s shown incorrectly. The measurement would be from the
property line. They’re just making the assumption measuring from the easement
line.
Board Member Kornber.q: Okay. Thank you. I’m just trying to figure that. out.
Your exterior elevations show a gray or a dark gray as a contrast to the primary
colors, but your sample board looks more like a white. It looks very close to the
white.
Male Speaker: [unintelligible] dark gray, what I see from here looks like a gray,
and maybe there’s a darker gray also. The dark gray is the metal, is that right?
Mr. Campbell: These are the metal panels, and of course, it’s very hard to get
that silver color with the shadow lines and so on, so we thought with shadow
lines and with the silver color, this was what.we thought would be --
Board Member Kornberq: So everything that looks gray to me up there is
actually this white except for the metal panel. Is this white on the sample board?
Mr. Campbell: No; the white is for the windows, I mean, just the window trim.
Board Member Kornberq: This patch of Dryvit next to the red --
Mr. Campbell: Well, that’s sort of the base color.
Board Member Kornber.q: That’s the gray?
Mr. Campbell: That’s the base color. That;s this color.
Board Member Kornber.q: That’s that color. Okay.
Mr. Campbell: That’s correct.
Board Member Kornberq: All right. This is the white Dryvit, right? Okay. You
call that beige; this one, here?
Mr. Campbell: Yes. I’m sure Kelly-Moore has a much more fancy name for it, but
to us, it’s beige. Light tan, beige.
Board Member Kornber.q: I might say something. I don’t see the brown or the
warm tone in that at all, and it doesn’t look beige in the drawings, either. So
when you took out the windows on the corridors, on the upper one, did you
consider putting skylights in?
Mr. Campbell: We did. One reason we didn’t want to do it is we’re pretty close
right now on the energy .report, and we felt that the skylights would probably take
us out of compliance, especially the new energy standards for residential.
They’re much more restrictive than they used to be, and it’s, again, a reason why
at one point in the job we were still considering Dryvit or stucco, conventional
systems, and we went to Dryvit because of the insulation.
Board Member Kornber.q: Okay. I guess that’s all the questions I have about the
architecture right now. Thank you. Are there any follow-up questions?
Board Member Wasserman: Do you have a sustainability or green building
program for this project?
Mr. Campbell: We do, and we have not submitted that, but we will. We went
through an analysis. We’re trying to get to a silver level, and we think we can.
We’re not getting the certifications and so on, but we’re using that as a guideline.
Board Member Wasserman: So you think you’re getting to silver, and you can
barely meet your Title 24 requirements?
Mr. Campbell: Yeah. There are a lot of things, of course, in the leads that have
to do with developing a site that’s already been developed. There are a lot of
things that almost come naturally with this project.
Board Member Wasserman: I see.
Mr. Campbell: Another issues about low-level irrigation systems, that sort of
thing. So a lot of things in lease standards that don’t have to do with, there are
some, certainly, Judith, that have to do with energy, but a lot that don’t.
Board Member Wasserman: So you started out with a building on a promising
site because it had buildings there, and it was close to transit, and all that stuff,
but the building itself that you’re building barely meets Title 24.
Mr. Campbell: We’re finding that to be true in a lot of cases, because there’s
quite a bit of glass in the R&D, but in the residential, it’s just really been very
difficult with the new energy standards. And we’re close. We’re in compliance.
Board Member Wasserman: Really? You’d have to be. Okay, thank you.
Board Member Kornber.q: Any other questions? I have three members of the
public that would like to speak, and the first one is Jeff Dale, followed by Marcus
Wood and Robert Moss. I will give you 3 minutes.
Mr. Jeff Dale: Okay. My name’s Jeff Dale, and I’m a vice president of a high-
tech networking start-up that happens to be in one of Harold’s buildings on
Sheridan Avenue. I also live in another building on Sheridan, and as it happens,
I walk down that street quite a bit, so this is of quite a bit of interest to me. I think
it’s a great project. I really like it. The live-work is working pretty well for me.
You know, it’s not the same building, it’s in the general area. A lot of our
employees have taken apartments in the general area, and we find that it’s very
good. I think it’s very good for the green initiative to not be driving all over the
place, so I think it’s a big key factor.
I was surprised to hear the criticism about the pedestrian experience because it’s
such a major improvement over what’s there now, although I can see that one
can always look at things and see how to improve that.
Another interesting thing to me, and I found it interesting that the architectural
team didn’t talk about it, is when I look at the building, I think it does a really good
job of actually pulling together a lot of the very disparate building projects there.
We have Agilent and the Danger Building, which is a red brick, which stands out
quite a bit, but the red kind of pulls it in on this project, so I thought it was
interesting, that they did a very good job of pulling in a very eclectic
neighborhood. And then I think it actually makes the neighborhood pull together
more with it there rather than it being disruptive in any way.
I’d also like to mention that I consider myself a potential tenant in that building,
both living and our company would definitely consider their R&D space. So if
there’s any questions about that, that you were asking what type of tenant would
go there. That’s all I have.
Board Member Kornber,q: Okay. Thanks very much. And the next speaker is
Marcus Wood. Oh, there he is.
Mr. Marcus Wood: Sorry. My name is Marcus Wood. I live at 196 Colorado on
the corner of Emerson, and I’m in favor of this project, and while I think that’s not
the agenda today, I think, David, you brought up an issue that seems to be in the
mind of some of my neighbors about the light and the sound. MY house gets a
lot of noise, gets some noise that you get inured to it after time from the train., and
at night, the 11:23 freight goes by, the whole house shakes. It’s just what
happens in that neighborhood. I guess I could move if I really didn’t like it. Ido
see some of the light from the Agilent building. It’s kind of a non-issue. I~draw
my curtains, and I think that the project is really one that should be endorsed in
that these are kind of minor issues with all due respect to my neighbors. Thank
you.
Board Member Kornber.q: Thank you. And the last speaker I have is Bob Moss.
Mr. Bob Moss: Thank you. I have a different position. I support the staff
recommendation, and I urge you to reject the project as being incompatiblel not
meeting the normal requirements for design and compatibility of the community
and ignoring the City Council’s statement that they do not want residential in GM
zones, and they want this area to be developed with sensitivity and with
compatibility to the community. Specifically addressing the compatibility between
a GM zone and a residential, this is not a new issue. It’s been done in Palo Alto
for decades. I refer you to Fabian Way, where there is residential R-1 directly
behind GM. The GM buildings are done with sensitivity and do find they’re
compatible. This particular design, there’s a reference to having community
members look at options. I was one of those community members. We went to
the architect and looked at four different options. This was the one which we
were appalled at. We did not want to have a big, massive, long building looking
down. By the way, this particular site is about 10 to 12 feet above grade from the
residential across the tracks looking down at the residential properties. The
design that we liked had two separate buildings and broke up the facade, but the
developer didn’t like that, and so that was thrown off the table.
Talk about color. I think the idea of having the primary colors, the yellow and the
red, looking down into a residential neighborhood is absolutely ghastly. Let me
give you an example. Was any of you on the ARB when you approved that
school building on Arastradero next to Terman with the yellow walls? I
understand that several ARB members who did approve it after it was actually
built went by and said, "Boy, we really blew that one." Don’t make that same
mistake again.
Parking. Ninety-six parking spaces for 84 units, when the units average over
1000 square feet, is totally inadequate. That is not enough parking, doesn’t meet
code, you certainly aren’t justified in reducing the parking because of joint use.
The site development, the approach, the compatibility with the community is
totally irrelevant. If they just went with what they had originally, they ignored the
P/TOD overlay, they ignored.all the design guidelines, they ignored trying to be
compatible with the neighbors across the tracks, and you say, "ThiS is what we
want to build."
Finally, you’re asking about having compatibility between having residents living
directly above an R&D facility, particularly if that happens to be biological. That
isa real potential danger. Nobody has done it before. Chemicals can be used in
those laboratories which are toxic, which can escape and get into the living
units. People can not only be sickened, they can be killed depending on what
happens to be used in those units, and you and the City have no control over the
identity of the people who move in there, so I would very, very strongly urge you
to reject this project and make them some back with something satisfactory.
Board Member Kornber.q: Thank you very much. David, you said you had a
question? I forgot to ask you.
Board Member Solnick: I had one question and one comment. Actually, the
ARB gave a design award for that yellow building on Arastradero. I had a
question about if there was City thought or precedent for companies buying a
number of apartments for use by their own employees. Have you thought about
any connections between that? I don’t mean physical connections but use
connections between the residential and the commercial?
Mr. Hohbach: I think I should respond to that. I have developed a number of
office buildings and apartments, and I’ve kept them all. They’re all mapped, but
my plan is not to make it a rental project, but the problem is if you want to sell
one unit, you have to put a condominium plan into being and do that, so my plan,
asserting the future is possible, my plan right now is not to sell them and tell them
they’re not for sale, but they certainly can rent, and I’ve had no difficulty in renting
units to tenants, corporate tenants have R&D capabilities.
Board Member Solnick: You’ve done it where a tenant has secured a number of
apartments in some way? I guess they actually wouldn’t have to buy them; they
could pay the rent on them. Is that something --
Mr. Hohbach: That’s correct. I have one tenant that has three apartments in one
building.
Board Member Solnick: And they’re used for their employees?
Mr. Hohbach: No, they generally used for themselves and some employees,
right. It varies, but generally typically what they do is they rent an apartment, one
apartment or two apartments at most, and then they work there. Let’s say a
tenant, and let’s say, for example, and R&D company wants to have something
available for visitors that come and stay or something like that. They could rent
an apartment and have employees use it or have them use it. I could agree to
that. And that has happened.
Board Member Solnick: Thank you.
Board Member Kornber,q: Thanks, David. Well, seeing no more questions, I’m
going to close the public hearing, and unless the applicant has any more
comments they’d like to make? I guess not. So I would like to return to the
Board for motions and recommendations. Clare, would you like to start?
Board Member Malone: I’m generally in support of this project in concept. I very
much like the idea of rental in this area, and I like maintaining some R&D space,
again, in this area. I agree with the applicant that there really isn’t much of a
design theme in the area, and so I don’t see any issues with compatibility with
other buildings. I also think it’s a bit of a stretch to take the compatibility
requirements all the way out to the residential zone, which is quite some distance
away. I think the building still needs a little bit of work as far as the aesthetics.
There are some things specifically I would like to see. I would like the possibility
to be maintained for there to be some ground-floor retail; if not immediately, then
at some time in the future. The central courtyard is the same as what we saw
before. There’s still a vast plane of paving that I’d like to see broken up with a
little bit more planting and site furnishings. I would also like to see some of those
windows, if not all of them on Park Boulevard, taken down to the ground in order
to facilitate future entrances directly onto Park Boulevard. I think there’s a great
opportunity here to do some interesting lighting to help to enliven that
streetscape, not anything that would point up towards the apartments and disturb
the residents, but some kind of a surface-mounted fixture that perhaps points
down toward the ground would be an asset to the building. And I’d like to make
some comments on the findings in the staff report.
If you look at finding number 1, we’re saying it’s not compatible with preserving
the character of residential neighborhoods, I would say that this finding is really
not applicable, because the building is not in a residential neighborhood
currently, and furthermore, Policy L14, also in item 1, to design and arrange new
multifamily buildings so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street, I
do not believe that’s applicable when the residences are all above the first floor.
Item 2 I think I already talked about. The immediate environment is not
residential; therefore, I don’t see any incompatibility issues.
Number 5, I believe the design is not causing us any problems in harmonious
transitions in scale and character. There is a very large building next door to it.
There’s a lot of commercial in the area, so I believe the scale in this location is
appropriate.
And item 8, the open space. In looking through the documentation, it appears to
me that the open space .provided is in conformance with the residential
standards, so I believe that there’s no issue here~
And on the DEE exceptions: Number 1, I do believe that the location of the site
is exceptional, because of the train tracks. Item 2 in DEE exceptions, again, the
compatibility issue, I don’t think there’s a problem with compatibility, because this
is not a residential zone currently. And Item 3, I think we are going to be looking
for guidance on whether or not the DEE exceptions being asked for can be
combined into one as far as setbacks, daylight planes, etc., can that all be
lumped into one for the purposes of the concessions. That’s all I have.
Board Member Kornber,q: Thank you. David.
Board Member Solnick: I’ve had a lot of torment about this project in some
regards, in part because I’ve been on the board for three years, and I’ve really
never felt substantially at odds with the planning staff about a project, which I
think is a very good thing. I think that’s great, and I’m just happy that that’s true.
But I have to say that this is the first time where I really completely disagree with
the staffs recommendation, really, 180 degrees, and it had to happen eventually,
so I suppose once in three years is not bad. And I feel that way both for some
very general reasons and some very specific reasons.
The general reasons: I think this project is, itself, a start~up in a sense in that it’s
a bit of an experiment. The City is promoting mixed use, and I’m very much in
favor of that, the Planning Department is in favor of that, I think the Council is in
favor, and we’ve seen some mixed-use projects appear, but really, for the most
part, they’ve been token mixed use. You know, they’ve been retail, a floor of
retail, a couple of floors of commercial, and then a unit or two on top, for the most
part. Some great projects, but as far as their mixed use-ness, it’s been fairly
minimal. This is the first project I’ve seen that really is mixed-use. This is really
saying, "Okay, if you want mixed-use, let’s go for it. Let’s try it." I agree there are
some questions about whether you want to put this much residential over
commercial, and of course, a lot of that hinges on what the commercial is. They
keep referring to it as R&D, but you know, they might just as well be offices, so a
lot of it has to do with the wording. But I think that experiment is worth trying. I
mean, if we’re going to ask for mixed-use and then get mixed-use, I don’t think
we should say, ’~/ell, why are you mixing these two uses?" The other thing is, I
don’t see this developer as doing this for great economic gain. Being a mini-
developer myself, I know that building new rental apartments is not a way to
make money. This is only the second project since I’ve been on the board that
we’ve seen, and we saw the first one just last time, and it was an addition of
several units to an existing rental project. So this is the first one here an entirely
new project is being proposed rental, and the reason we haven’t seen it is
because it doesn’t make any money.
This developer, I think, I don’t know Harold that well, and he isn’t saying this to
me, but what I see between the lines is that this developer is doing this maybe for
20 years from now; 20 years from now it might make money; you know, rentals
do appreciate into money, but they don’t make money in the short term. We’ve
seen this with another developer recently, an older developer who has made
their money in Palo Alto and is doing something that he thinks is good for the City
and sort of fun for himself but not necessarily a way to make a lot of money, and
that was the restaurant that Sal’s doing on University, with that very lively design,
I think where US Bank used to be.
So I think that also should be encouraged, that people come forward with a
project that’s trying to give back to Palo Alto. I don’t know that this is charity, I
don’t think it is, but it’s certainly not the way to make the most money off of this
piece of land. I know that for a fact, not anywhere close. So I appreciate the
experiment of this, even the fountain, the fountain that we see, the picture of the
fountain is a little bit risque, and there’s just a sense of trying something new
here, and I really think that should be encouraged.
Some of the other issues. I feel a little misled about the P/TOD. My
understanding is that it was at the applicant’s option, and so it pains me to think
that it can now be forced upon an applicant, because that’s just not how that
zone was represented when it was being developed. I think it’s possible that the
staff’s response to this may be one that I had, too, when I first heard that they
had chosen not to go the P/TOD route, I said to Harold, ’~/Vell, gosh, didn’t they
kind of make the P/TOD and hurry it up partly for your project, and now you don’t
want it. Why is that? What’s going on?" And it may be that the Planning staff
feels a little bit like, ’~/ell, gee, we’ve gone to all this effort not just for this project,
but in part, we’ve hurried it up for this project, and then you’ve rejected it," and so
maybe there’s a little bit of something associated with that, but you know, if you
give people the option to use something, you have to keep it. You can’t say,
"Well, we didn’t really mean it, but it was optional, and now we’re going to make
you do it." It’s a bit of a shame that it doesn’t match one of the first projects in
this area, but that really should be the applicant’s choice.
I completely agree with what Clare has said very clearly about overextending the
context. I think that’s a very dangerous precedent, and actually more specifically,
I walked down Alma, down that entire length of Alma yesterday. Most of those
buildings on Alma are one-story. There are a number of two-stories as well, but
they have virtually no windows on the second floor. There is nary a window on
the second floor of those buildings. Surprise, surprise, she they don’t want the
noise. So the idea that they’re going to have views, and you can’t see anything
from the ground floor windows. There are windows there. Actually, there’s
mostly carports, but there are some windows on the ground floor. You cannot
see anything across the tracks from the ground floor. From the second floor, you
could, but there aren’t any windows. So that is just a non-issue, and the thing
about the noise from the train bouncing and hitting the building, obviously, that’s
already been discredited by the acoustic engineer, but I don’t know who came up
with that.
Okay. So on to some architectural things. The colors. I think the color scheme
on Park Boulevard is really pretty exciting. I agree with what Ken was alluding to,
that in off-white -- I call that off-white and not beige -- it won’t be as good, and I
think that field color needs to be closer to what .the rendering is and not closer to
what the material sample is. When you use primary colors, you need to have
some strength to the field color to make them pop. I don’t think any of the other
elevations are nearly as successful. In part, Ithink that one is so good in the
variety of the way the colors were used that it makes the other ones look
pedestrian. And that’s the first time I’ve seen the ones on the inside of the
courtyard My sense is that either make all four, instead of going blue, red, blue,
yellow, my inclination would be to make them all the same color, say, blue, or not
have a color on the inside. Because they’re all the same shape they’re all the
same size, and just to change the color of-them from one to the next just seems
kind of like seeing four of them, like my 8-year-old who can’t draw. But I think the
colors on Park Boulevard are very exciting, the way those are treated, and I think
you certainly could do something else using the primary colors on the other
elevations, including the train tracks.
The specific issues I have are that I think you have too many reveals on the side,
I don’t think you need four, eight, and 12; I think two would be enough, not three.
I think the bike lockers in the courtyard need to be reconsidered as well as. the
transformers, and I agree with Clare about the lighting. I think a lot more could
be done with lighting on Park Boulevard without disturbing the residential. And I
also think that it would be a good idea to have this come back, whether to a
subcommittee or the full Board, once the tenant mix is further along to see if the
ground floor elevations couldn’t be enlivened in concert with their actual users.
So I would like to move to approve this project with these things that I have
mentioned, Clare has mentioned, and I’m sure others will mention as conditions.
Board Member Kornberq: Do I have a second?
Board Member Wasserman: I’ll second that.
Board Member Kornberq: Any discussion? Okay, Do you have some
comments here?
Board Member Wasserman: Yeah. I must say that I found this to be one of the
most confusing projects in my six years here on the Board. I think the staff was
confused about the zoning. I think the applicant was confused about the zoning.
Everybody seems to be picking and choosing the bits out of the zones that they
like best and that work for them and putting it all together in some sort of stew,
head cheese. Nobody seems to know what the zone is, when it was that zone,
has it changed, and so I sort of gave up on the zoning. I said, "Okay, let’s forget
the zoning and let’s look at the building. How does the building work?" Well,
except for some things, I tend to agree with my colleagues. This is a peculiar
location in the city. It’s kind of near a very important retail area. It’s got some
really big commercial sites around it: It’s got some residential stuff down on Olive
kind of far away. Down by Fry’s it’s got another major retail zone, and the
possibilities of what happens on Park Boulevard between Fry’s and California
Avenue is the future of that area. That’s what I think we should be thinking
about. What can this building do to improve the possibilities for Park Boulevard
in the future?
Now, there was some statement made in one of the applicant’s letters that the
staff didn’t like the idea of retail in that building. Whether or not that is true, and
.you know, everybody’s doing this on this project, and so I’m not really taking
anybody’s word for anything that they said somebody else said, but I think that
retail in this project in this location would be a really good thing. I don’t think it
would detract from California Avenue; I think it would add to the critical mass,
because retail builds on itself. Unless we’re talking about a mall or some major
big box things. We’re not talking about that here. We’re talking about more of
the same, and to say that it wouldn’t be viable because it’s off the main drag, you
cannot say that. Ask the owner of Cafe Riace, you just can’t -- that’s the most
disingenuous statement I ever heard. There was the most hidden, remote, tiny
little thing that became so successful that it overwhelmed its context. You can’t
say that.
I think that the big failure of this project is its address of Park Boulevard. It turns
itself inward in a place where it ought to turn itself outward, but the way the
building is designed doesn’t preclude -- you don’t have to turn the building inside
out for that addressing of the street to be fixed. Here’s yet another case where
the landscaping outdistances the building in that context. It would not be the first
time that this landscape architect has bailed out this developer. But I agree
completely that these windows at the very least ought to go down to the ground. I
think there should be activity, I think people should be walking in and out of
those doors, past the folks that are sitting on the benches. People should be
meeting their girlfriends on that street. I think that the tower at the corner is
getting there. It was an afterthought. It should be developed, it should make
some sort of a statement I don’t think that’s a major corner, but I think that if you
look at the massing, just at the building, that the tower is too small. It’s just weak.
Lastly, I got quoted in the paper for last time talking about baby puke. Since I
can no longer mince words and keep my mouth shut, I think that these colors do
not scale up. I felt Mondrian’s working on canvas, and we are working on Dryvit.
We are talking about a scale of two or three orders of magnitude here, and I just
don’t think they scale up that well. I agree with David that on the Park Boulevard
side, in general, I think the composition, the locations of the colors work very
well, but I think it’s a very unsophisticated palette. To go back to the babies. It
goes back to babies, and I also agree that.the beige ain’t beige but ought to be
beige. I think the colors in the renderings -- this happens a lot with these
computer things, that we get computer renderings that are superior to the actual
materials proposed, so I think that that beige that is actually in the computer
rendering is better than this off-white, which kind of looks dirty when it started,
and it’s going to look worse in short order.
So I think I would support the motion with conditions, and that I would add some
more color studies and improvements to the tower to the list of conditions.
Board Member Kornber~: Okay. Grace, did you have any comments you want
to make?
Board Member Lee: Just a few brief comments. With architectural design
summary that staff submitted in the report. I agree with most of what my
colleagues have already voiced. I believe Clare’s list and Judith’s and David’s.
additions make sense as conditions. I applaud the applicant again for the rental
apartments and then the mixed use in this area; however, I would say that from
our initial first meeting, informal meeting, and then the last hearing and this
hearing, I’m a bit disappointed in the way that the design has progressed. The
set has not changed significantly. I believe on the 11 issues that are listed here,
five of them are still kind of left open and haven’t been changed, or there hasn’t
been serious design investigation or options. Most importantly, the railroad-
facing elevation. It’s, to me, a negative effect to potential apartment residents
that there is no daylight on that dark corridor. There’s not even a skylight option
explored for the hallway on the third floor. I wonder about this treatment of the
trees on the back, but the potential of it being a screen, since you have that 10-
foot easement and you aren’t in compliance with the daylight that sits at the
property line, at least a gesture could be made that there is a rhythm of trees.
You know, those residents, they don’t have windows, they don’t have daylight,
and there’s not a buffer against the immediate adjacency of the Caltrain, and to
me that’s not a positive outcome.
Also, this pedestrian-friendly discussion. How can the elevation at the street
level along Park Boulevard, and as you turn the corner at Page Mill, this is a
corner building. It’s on an urban condition. It sits at the corner, and the treatment
and the discussion about how to make it pedestrian-friendly is focused on the
second and third floor and the mechanical screens. I wonder, again, about that
ground floor arcade and this kind of first gesture of adding swishes, which are
just benches, how can it really engage the arcade, turn the corner, do something
with lighting, and provide a more pedestrian-friendly Page Mill and Park
Boulevard elevation.
The landscaping on the courtyard, that was another point, that the courtyard is
still this large hardscape area. I think they’ve already covered it, but the design
has not changed and moved forward. So in general, I would say that I would be
in agreemenl for kind of continuing the item with conditions, but it is disappointing
that we’re basically looking at the same set that we received a month ago.
Thanks.
Board Member Kornber,q: Thank you, and I’ll add a few comments, too. I’m in
general agreement with the Board that the concept of the project would be really
exciting to see it happen. The caveat that I have to that, which I don’t think is so
much a zoning thing as a real conflict in what’s being proposed, is even though
GM allows R&D, residential and R&D are not compatible unless some
restrictions are put on it, and specifically, as brought up by one of the public
speakers, I don’t see how to put biotech in this building, and from day 1, I have
asked for a specific and careful analysis of that, and we haven’t really received it,
but biotech tenants need radioisotopes and flammables and highly toxics and
have a huge amount of waste that has to be taken care of, and the plumbing
systems and the HVAC systems in this level simply won’t work. You have to take
care of that in a way in which the building is designed, not the way a tenant
designs it. You can’t simply put in a lab waste line at your location and expect to
get it to sampling ports and to dilution tanks, whatever is required.
I think you could leave the zoning as it is or leave the GM R&D as it is, and the
first biotech tenant would have to take care of all these problems, and the way it’s
done in the City of Palo Alto is that the hazmats are reviewed by the fire
department and building department, and there are limitations as to what a
building can have. One tenant occupying 1000 square feet can take the entire
requirement for this building, and then it can be subdivided into four separate
buildings and control areas, and then the management has to know what each
tenant has and add those up, and it then requires separation areas that have to
go vertically through the entire building in order to define that unless the
separation between the R&D floor and the other floors is designed as a
separation area, and it hasn’t been done that way. So I don’t see practically how
this can have the hazmat requirements that are allowed in most R&D uses. A lot
of biotech companies have laboratory animals, so when you look at the kinds of
problems that we have putting biotech anywhere near residential areas, I don’t
see how it’s compatible with this. So maybe we could approve this project for
what the applicant’s asking for, but I don’t see how we can approve it with some
of the limitations that will have to be imposed on it. I agree with Grace that the
first day this came to us, we asked about these deadly hotel-like corridors, and
they said, "We’ll put in windows," and they took out the windows. It just isn’t a
good resolution, and breaking up the buildings into smaller pieces might have
helped. I’m not really sure, but it didn’t make much progress from the first time it
came to us as a study session or as a preliminary. We pleaded each time it
came to us to have the plans match the elevations, match the colors, match the
sample boards, and they haven’t made much progress. I think it’s gotten further
away. The white windows, which I think are represented by this frame, are not
shown on the elevations; they’re shown dark gray, and trying to get a good sense
of what this project is going to really look like is really critical to us, and I think it’s
sort of insulting to keep coming back with things that are more confusing rater
than more clarifying. But again, I think I’m in sympathy with the idea of trying to
get a mixed use here in a way that’s really feasible. If it.is R&D, you’re going to
have mechanical on the roof and a lot of it, and you’re going to have to have
mechanical support in the floor unless by R&D you simply mean B2 internet
people sitting at computers, and that’s fine. So maybe we can construct a
condition in which the R&D is dry space only with no hazmats, and then I think it
would work quite well.
I’m in sympathy with the staff’s frustration that there were ways to take care of
some of the minor DEE’s requests. The setback, why there is no effort to take
advantage of that when it was first brought up. I just don~t know why it wasn’t
addressed, and when I see the staff’s frustration of trying to get some movement
by the applicant, I don’t think it would have hurt the client very much; it’s just
never happened. My understanding of the reason it didn’t happen is that the
applicant essentially finished the working drawings long before this board
approved rather critical elements of the project and, for good reasons, was not
interested in doing major changes in the project, but the process of design review
is intended to be something in which people come closer together in the early
stages so that when it gets to the approved stage and starting the working
drawings, it isn’t painful, it isn’t expensive, and it’s just a shame to see that
happen on this. It’s becoming one of the driving forces. So I think that’s all I
really want to add at this point. I just hope that we can get a more compatible
relationship between staff and the applicant so this project can move forward in a
really beneficial way.
So we have a motion and a second, and I think in the second we need to clarify
what the conditions will be for approval, if there is a vote for approval. In my
case, I’d like to have the condition that this be restricted from any hazardous
materials use on the property.
Board Member Lee: Are we including the windows and the corridor as one of the
conditions? Because I feel very strongly that that’s important, and there are
definite --
Male Speaker: More windows or skylights?
Board Member Lee: Windows work well, but we have a second floor that the
skylights wouldn’t do them any good, but you can arrange the interior lighting so
it doesn’t coincide with the windows, so it doesn’t affect anybody on the outside.
I really don’t think having windows in the back has any effect on the people
across the train tracks if you do the lighting correctly.
Female Speaker: I would support adding that condition.
Male Speaker: One thing that wasn’t clarified, I wanted to hear what people say
abouthow it comes back.
Board Member Lee: I think it needs to come back to a full Board.
MaleSpeaker: I think so, too.
Board Member Lee: I guess that means it comes back on consent, if we’re
approving it. If this is a motion for approval, then it comes back on consent.
Male Speaker: Yeah, I would like to add the comment sort of specifically to
Harold that I think you’re hearing some general sympathy from this Board, which
I think could serve you well as this process continues, which I’m sure it will, and
up in Council, but it’s your doggedness that’s gotten it this far and will get it to the
end if it gets there, but it’s also your doggedness that ismaking this Board
hesitant, because of the lack of changes to the variety of things that have been
asked for, and so if you can find a way to use the doggedness for the entitlement
process but be a little more flexible on the architecture, I think we would all be
better off.
Board Member Lee: Here, here.
Board Member Kornber.q: Do you want to either read back what we’re stated as
conditions of approval, or try to recharacterize it? I don’t know if Amy or Chris,
you’ve been writing down any of these things?
Senior Planner Riordan: I’ve been taking notes.
Board Member Kornber.q: Okay. I think it’s important--
Senior Planner Riordan: I’d be happy to read it back for what I have.here, and
you can interject if I’ve missed something. May be a good approach.
Board Member Kornberq: All right.
Senior Planner Riordan: Try that?
Board Member Kornberq: Yes.
Senior Planner Riordan: So we have a request for a motion to approve by board
member Solnick, seconded by board member Malone Prichard, to approve the
project and bring these following items back to the board on consent: That the
Park Boulevard windows be taken down to the ground level, that the interior
courtyard elevations that currently are a mix of four colors be one color, that the
number of reveals in the siding be reduced from three to two, that they
reconsider the location of the --
Male Speaker: That was reveals atthe siding.
Senior Planner Riordan: Siding. What did I say? With a D. Okay. Reconsider
the location of the bike lockers and the transformers in the courtyard. Okay, I’ve
got that already. And the tower should be further developed, perhaps increasing
its size, making its footprint larger. The colors do not scale up. i’m not quite sure
what that exactly meant.
Female Speaker: It means that bright colors work well in small areas, but when
you do a whole building, you can’t do that.
Senior Planner Riordan: The R&D is dry space only, no hazmat. Add windows
to the corridor, and again, then following, come back to the full Board on
consent. That’s the list I had.
Male Speaker: Windows and/or skylights. I think it could be skylights at the third
floor and windows at the second floor.
Male Speaker: I should have mentioned, I’m still concerned about the Dryvit as
the appropriate external material for --
Male Speaker: Can you explain what.that is? I’m not quite sure what --
Board Member Kornber.q: Dryvit is, typically there’s a metal backing, I mean a
metal stud, and then it has a foam board on it, which has some insulation value.
And then on top of that goes a mesh, fiberglass mesh. And then there’s an
epoxy coating that goes in that mesh which attaches it to the foam board, and
then there’s a color coat, a finish coat, sometimes two finish coats.
Male Speaker: Oh, Dryvit?
Board Member Kornber,q: D R Y V I T. It’s an external insulation finish system,
EIFS. Dryvit is a brand name, actually, because there are other brand names.
Male Speaker: It’s basically stucco stuck on the Styrofoam, but it’s more
elaborate than that.
Board Member Kornberq: This is about an eighth of an inch.
Male Speaker: Yes, you’re right. A finish coat of stucco.
Female.Speaker: It’s EIFS. It’s a brand name for EIFS. It’s an exterior insulation
system, but it doesn’t have any hard surface to it, so you can sort of poke things
into it.
Board Member Kornber.q: Yeah, and I think particularly ata sidewalk, it’s just not
a good ten-year solution. It’s a good five-year solution.
Male Speaker: They’re not doing it at the sidewalk, right?
Board Member Kornber.q: Yes, they are. I’m sorry, they’re doing a grade
Male Speaker: A.grade, but not at a sidewall.
Board Member Kornber.q: I actually don’t know. I tried to figure it out on the
drawings, and I just couldn’t figure it out
It’s always landscaping.
I thought there was the granite that was at the base on the
Male Speaker:
Male Speaker:
streets.
Female Speaker: How tall is that granite base, do we know?
Board Member Kornberq: It’s about a foot. There’s a section through that
granite, actually.
Female Speaker: Oh, really?
Board Member Kornber.q: Yeah. It’s granite.
Male Speaker: I used it before on buildings. It’s about 38 inches, 40 inches,
something on that line.
Female Speaker: So the granite is like --
Male Speaker: I don’t think it’s that tall.
Male Speaker: Whatever it is, it’s a granite wainscot on the streets. It’s not
Dryvit.
Board Member Kornberq: I guess we need to add a condition to get the
drawings coordinated, the elevations and the floor plans and the details and the
sections.
Male Speaker: There also was a comment by Board Member Prichard about the
lighting of the building? Do you want to add that also?
Female Speaker: Yes.
Female Speaker: And there were a couple of other comments I had written down
that you didn’t pick up. One was on the colors, to make the field color closer to
what’s shown on the rendering versus what’s seen on the sample board.
Maintain the possibility of ground floor retail in the future. Add planting and site
furniture at the courtyard. Take another look at the corner ground floor arcade,
trying to engage it with the swishes, incorporate lighting, something along that
line, Grace had a comment on the tree buffer at Caltrain that I didn’t capture very
well.
Board Member Lee: Reconsider the tree planting along the Caltrain elevation in
the easement.
Male Speaker: Reconsider in what aspect?
Board Member Lee: Adding more trees, considering a tree screen.
Female Speaker: I think that you had said, using a rhythm.
Board Member Lee: Regular planting.
Female Speaker: A regular rhythm.
Board Member Kornber.q: Also, I think it would be helpful if the elevations, when
they’re fixed, show where mechanical units will be if there are going to be
mechanical units on the roof.
Male Speaker: Some of these, I’m a little worried about, might be too vague.
Judith, you’re saying the primaries don’t scale up. I understand what you’re
saying. I’m not completely sure I agree with you, but what I’m worried about is
that we’ll get back beige, that we’ll get back, and I can picture it. You didn’t like
the primaries, you said you didn’t like the primaries, so here’s brown and light
brown and tan and beige. That could well happen based on --
Board Member Lee: That would be extremely unfortunate, wouldn’t it?
Male Speaker: Right. And I’m afraid that based on what we said so far, they
could easily come back and say that.
Board Member Lee: Okay. I had this discussion at great length with Mr.
Hohbach, and I was trying to explain that the hues are fine, but the intensity is
overwhelming. So I would recommend that -- color has three properties: hue,
value, and intensity -- that the hues remain but some work be done with the value
and intensity to make the overwhelming qualities of the project more subdued. I
do not think brown was mentioned at any time.
Male Speaker: That’s just the kind of specificity I wanted to hear about.
Board Member Lee: Yeah. No brown, except the steel.
Male Speaker: I went by the Sunrise Building over the weekend to talk about
plant.
Board Member Kornber.q: Well, there’s a lot of intensity on the Arastradero
School, so I’m wondering which way you’re going with this.
Board Member Lee: That’s a primary school.
Board Member Kornber,q: Yes, a school.
Board Member Lee: It’s appropriate for a primary school. This is not a primary
school. This is an R&D building with adult housing rentals above it. It’s just that
context is --
Board Member Kornberq: So you’re saying you want less of it or less in value.
Board Member Lee: Intensity. Less intensity. I mean, primary colors are, by
definition at their most intense. That’s part of the definition of a primary color. So
you could take the hue of the primary color, which is blue or yellow or red, and
reduce the intensity by softening it down somehow. We have seen very good
versions of that in various other projects where the colors are definitely colors but
are not primary, not intense colors.
Male Speaker: There’s nothing subdued about the Opportunity Center, and
that’s for adults. But it’s not primary colors.
Board Member Kornber.q: I don’t think it’s very successful color-wise, either.
Board Member Lee: We could have this debate for a long time.
Board Member Kornberq: You’re going to get five different theories about the
color.
Board Member Lee: No, we’ll probably get at least six, because of the scale-up
factor.
Board Member Kornber.q: Are there any other conditions that want to add, or
does this sum it up pretty well? No? Okay, let’s vote, and I will ask all in favor,
please? Opposed? That’s 5-0-0. I would like to take a short break, please.
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Agenda Date:
To:
June 1, 2006
Architectural Review Board
From:Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Department: Planning and
Community Environment
Subject:195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard
[05PLN-00175]: Request by Court House Plaza Company for major
Architectural Review Board review of an application to allow the
construction of a three story building to include 50,467 square feet for
Research and Development space on the ground floor and 104,971 square
feet for two level residential apartments totaling 84 units, plus a
subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. The project
includes a request for Design Enhancement Exceptions to exceed the
maximum allowable building height, encroach into the side and rear
daylight plane, reductions in the building setbacks, and an increase in the
maximum allowable lot coverage. Zone District: GM.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the Director of Planning
and Community Environment deny the proposed project (the project) based on the following:
1. The project exceeds the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permissible within the GM(B)
(General Manufacturing) zone district.
2. The project would not conform to the PTOD development standards or design guidelines
previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and that have been
recommended for approval to the City Council by the Planning and Transportation
Commission.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Changes to the GM(B) zone district
When this project was formally submitted for ARB review on August 4, 2005 the GM(B)
(General Manufacturing) zone development standards were in effect. The GM(B) zone included
multi-family residential as a permitted use and restricted the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) to
.50:1. On October 11, 2005, the City Council (Council) passed a resolution removing the "B"
overlay from the GM (General Manufacturing) zone district and removed all housing and mixed-
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard)
use (residential and nonresidential) development as permitted uses. Because this project had been
submitted for ARB review prior to the changes adopted by the Council, the Council specifically
exempted this project from the changes and stated that it would be allowed to proceed through the
review process under the GM(B) development standards in effect when the application was
submitted. In any case, residential housing must be allowed on the majority of this site as
identified in the Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
ProiectDescription
The project would include the demolition of all existing structures .on site and the construction of
a 157,387 square foot, three-story, residential apartment and research and development (R&D)
building with at grade parking and one level of below grade parking. The 50,467 square foot first
floor would be dedicated for R&D space. Located on the upper two floors would be 84 rental
apartments totaling 104,971 square feet.
The approximate 2.5 acre-project site is composed of three lots fronting Park Boulevard and Page
Mill Road (see location map, Attachment A). The site is improved with vacant buildings of
corrugated metal and concrete. A complete description of the project is included in the
Applicant’s written project description (Attachment B) and in the July 7, 2005 preliminary ARB
staff report (Attachment G).
The project includes requests for Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE’s) from the GM(B) Zone
development standards. Full descriptions of the requested exceptions are discussed later in this
report.
Preliminary ARB Comments
On July 7, 2005 the ARB conducted a preliminary review of the project. The ARB was generally
supportive of the design and details of the project and provided the following comments to the
Applicant. On August 4, 2005 the Applicant submitted a formal ARB application which included
a written response to some of the comments provided by the ARB during their preliminary review
(Attachment B). The following is a list of the ARB’s comments, along with a short narrative
response on some items copied from the Applicant’s response letter.
A small restaurant or caf6 would be a positive amenity for both the residents and tenants of
the project and could function as an extension of the California Avenue retail district.
"Retail is not being provided at the corner of the building at Park Boulevard and
Page Mill Road because it is believed that there would be inadequate foot traffic to
convince a prospective tenant that it could develop a profitable business
particularly in view of the fact that the California Avenue retail business district is
within close walking distance of the Park Plaza Project".
The proposed sustainability program is favorable.
The possible live/w0rk aspect of the project is a desirable feature.
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873~ 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard) -
The Research and Development portion of the project could have a greater
separation/detachment from the residential units.
The rear elevation facing the Caltrain tracks is predominantly comprised of stucco.
Passing trains have the tendency of producing copious amounts of dust that could easily
soil the rear of the building thereby requiring increased maintenance to keep it clean.
"An integral color hard cement plaster finish is being provided on the Caltrain side
of the R&D space. This will be easy to pressure wash to remove dirt and grime.
Access to the Caltrain side of the building will be very difficult and would only be
possible by crossing the Caltrain tracks from Alma Street. If graffiti does appear
on the Park Plaza wall it can be removed by pressure washing and if necessary by
repainting that surface".
The interior courtyard!parking lot is a positive concept but may not be a desirable outdoor
space due to both the noise and exhaust fumes emitted by motor vehicles.
The 34 Vehicle parking spaces in the courtyard have been reduced to 19 spaces.
The reduction in vehicle spaces could result in less fumes and noise from motor
vehicles.
It would be better to have vehicular access to the underground parking garage from Page
Mill Road rather than Park Boulevard.
"Underground parking access from Page Mill Road has been considered and was
not considered to be feasible because the Page Mill Road side of the building is
needed to provide spaces for unloading and unloading of moving vans."
Interior corridors on the upper residential floors are long and dark. Possible separation of
buildings could reduce the "hotel corridor" effect.
"The corridors of the Park Plaza Project will be illuminated from a 15KW
photovoltaic array. Natural light will be present in many of the residential
hallways. Since an elevator is provided in each of the four corners of the building,
any resident by choosing the appropriate elevator will only have a short distance of
travel to a selected apartment and need not traverse long hallways".
The indoor pool would be a nice amenity for the residents.
A lighting plan should be submitted for review by the ARB.
"Bollard and well lights are being proposed to provide courtyard lighting. No
exterior lighting on the building is contemplated."
The plans should include details depicting the relationship and connections of dissimilar
building materials.
DISCUSSION
California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD)
On May 10, 2006, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended approval of
¯ the PTOD ordinance to the City Council (PAMC Chapter 18.66). The proposed project is located
within the boundaries of the PTOD district. The PTOD includes both development standards and
Context-Based Design Findings that have been developed to implement the PTOD. The intent of
the PTOD is to foster densities and facilities that support concepts such as the use of public
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard)
transportation, streetscape design elements that are attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists, and
project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the PTOD overlay area.
When the PTC recommended approval of the PTOD, they expressed their expectation that this
project would conform to the PTOD standards.
The project would not be in conformance with all of the PTOD development standards. A table
comparing the project to the PTOD development standards is included as Attachment F.
Specifically, the project would exceed both the FAR for a mixed use project and the square
footage limit on non-residential floor area. The project would neither provide the required 5 foot
landscaped buffer nor the daylight plane setback adjacent to the Caltrain right of way.
As mentioned above, the PTOD includes Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings
(Attachment F). These findings are in addition to the ARB findings. Development in a PTOD is
to be responsive to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the
establishment of a pedestrian and transit oriented neighborhood. Staff has compared the project to
the PTOD findings and has made the determination that the project would be inconsistent with
these findings. The findings are separated into the following eight categories.
1)Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Projects shall promote pedestrian walkability and a
bicycle friendly envirgnment.
2)Street Building Facades - Street fagade are to be designed to provide a strong relationship
with the sidewalks and the. street and to create an environment that supports and
encourages pedestrian activity.
3) Massing and Articulation Building are to be designed to minimize massing and provide
for articulation and design variety.
4) Low Density Residential Transitions New projects built adjacent to existing lower-scale
residential development shall respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties.
5) Project Open Space - Private and public open space is to be provided to that it is usable
for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site.
6) Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but not allowed to overwhelm the
character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment.
7) Large (multi-acre) Sites Lots in excess of one acre shall be designed so that street, block,
and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood.
8)Sustainability and Green Building Design - Project design and materials to achieve
sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project.
Floor Area Ratio, Residential Density, and Use
A table is provided as Attachment C comparing the project’s features to the GM(B) zone
development standards. The maximum allowable FAR in the GM(B) zone is .50:1 (52,485 square
feet). The proposed floor area ratios for the R&D and residential portions of the project would be
.48 (50,467 square feet) and 1.02 (106,920 square feet), respectively. The project would exceed
the maximum allowable floor area allowable on the site by 104,988 square feet.
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard)
Residential Density and Below Market Rate Units
The proposed project would have a density of 34.9 units per acre for a total of 84 units. The RM-
30 development standards would be applicable to the residential portion of the project which
would allow a total of 72 dwelling units.
The project would exceed the allowable density by 11 units. The project would provide 14 Below
Market Rate (BMR) housing units. All residential projects of five or more units on parcels five
acres or less are required to provide a minimum of 15% (11 units in this case) of these units as
BMR units. Program H-38 of the Comprehensive Plan allows the construction of up to three
additional market rate units (25% BMR requirement) for each Below Market Rate (BMR) unit
above that normally required, up to a maximum zoning increase of 50 percent in density. (110
units in this case). The minimum number of required BMR units is 11 and the project would
provide 14. The provision of three additional BMR units would allow the construction of up to 11
additional market rate units.
Building Height and Dayligtit Plane
The maximum allowable building height in the GM(B) Zone district is 50 feet. An additional
fifteen feet of height is allowed for rooftop mechanical andelevator equipment and screening.
The proposed building measures approximately 38’-8" to the top of the roof. A 20’-8" tall
mechanical equipment enclosure would be located on the roof at the intersection of Park
Boulevard and Page Mill Road. The .mechanical equipment enclosure would exceed the allowable
height exception by approximately six feet.
For a mixed use project within the GM(B) zone district, the residential portion cannot exceed a
height of 35 feet or a daylight plane restriction in accordance with PAMC Section 18.55.070(2),
which references use of.the RM-30 district standards for the residential portion. The proposed
project would exceed the maximum allowable building height by approximately 3’-8" feet and
would project beyond the required daylight plane at each side and rear property line for the full
length of the structure.
The applicant has requested DEE’s to exceed the maximum allowable building height and to
encroach into the side and rearyard daylight plane.
Building Setbacks and Lot Coverage
The minimum front yard setback is 20 feet and the project is providing nine feet. The minimum
side and rear yard setbacks for a structure over one story are required to be a minimum of ten feet
for the first story and one-half of the actual height of the structure, but not less than ten feet for the
portion of the structure over one story. The proposed building would be 38’-8" in height, so
therefore, the setback of the second and third stories should be a minimum of approximately 20
feet. The proposed side and streetside building setbacks for all stories would be 10 feet and six
feet, respectively.
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard)
The maximum lot coverage in the RM-30 zone district is 40% (41,989 square feet) of the site
area. The applicant proposed lot coverage of approximately 51,730 square feet would exceed the
maximum allowed by 9,741 square feet.
The applicant has requested DEE’s to increase the maximum allowable lot Coverage and to reduce
the minimum required building setbacks.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study was prepared but not circulated, as the staff recommendation is for denial based
on the project’s deficiencies with respect to the existing zoning of the property.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Project location map.
Applicant’s Project Description
Project’s Conformance with GM(B) & RM-30 District Regulations (prepared by
staff).
Project’s Conformance with the California Avenue PTOD (prepared by staff).
Draft PTOD Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings.
Draft PTOD Context-Based Design: Guidelines and Standards.
Preliminary ARB Staff Report, dated July 7, 2004 (without attachments).
Development Plans (Board Members Only)~
COURTESY COPIES
Court House Plaza Company
Hoover Associates
Prepared By: Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner
Manager Review:Amy French, AICP, Acting Manager of Current Planning(~
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard)
Attachment J
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Agenda Date:September 7, 2006
To."Architectural Review Board
From:Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Department: Planning and
Community Environment
Subject:195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard
[05PLN-00175]: Request by Court House Plaza Company for major
Architectural Review Board review of an application to allow the
construction of a three story building to include 50,467 square feet for
Research and Development space on the ground floor and 104,971 square
feet for two floors of residential apartments totaling 84 units, plus a
subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. The project
includes a request for Design Enhancement Exceptions to exceed the
maximum allowable building height, encroach into the side and rear
daylight plane, reduce the front and street side setbacks and increase the lot
coverage. Zone District: GM.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment denial of the project because (1) the proposed mix of uses
are not permitted, (2) the project exceeds the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permissible
within the GM (General Manufacturing) zone district, and (3) the Design Enhancement Exception
findings cannot be made for the requested exceptions from code regulations on height, daylight
plane, setbacks, and lot coverage. Draft findings for denial are provided in Attachment A.
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION
Project Description
The project would include the demolition of all existing structures on site and the construction of
a 157,387 square foot, three-story, residential apartment and research and development (R&D)
building with at grade parking and one level of below grade parldng. The 50,467 square foot first
floor would be dedicated for R&D space. Located on the upper two floors would be 84 rental
apartments totaling 104,971 square feet.
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard)
The subject property is approximately 2.5 acres in size, composed of three lots fronting Park
Boulevard and Page Mill Road, recently adjusted in configuration by a lot line adjustment as
depicted on the development plans (the curved lot line separating 2091 and 3045 Park Boulevard
was straightened). The site is improved with vacant buildings of corrugated metal and concrete.
The project includes requests for Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE’s) from the GM Zone
development standards. Full descriptions of the requested exceptions are discussed in the June 1,
2006 ARB staff report (Attachment I).
Previous Architectural ReView Board Hearing
The ARB most recently reviewed this major ARB application during a public hearing on June 1,
2006. The Board continued the review to a date .uncertain (3-2-0-0), to allow the applicant an
opportunity to revise the submittal package and respond to various issues raised by the ARB, and
for staff to better determine compliance with zoning requirements.
The following items summarize the key ~ comments/concerns expressed by the ARB during
the hearing:
Explore options to increase the number of windows and architectural differentiation of the
building elevation that faces the railroad tracks.
¯Provide colored renderings of the building elevations.
¯Submit details and samples of the exterior materials.
¯Consider architectural solutions to enhance the appearance and improve the articulation of
the lower level of the Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road corner of the building.
¯Submit an illustrative colored landscaped site plan of the proposed landscaping along Park
Boulevard.
The landscaping of the courtyard could be improved with a better use of the space to
provide amenities to the various occupants of the building,
-The amount of daylight entering the rear interior corridors could be increased.
¯The architecture of the building does not relate well to the surrounding environment. The
project should enhance the pedestrian experience along Park Boulevard.
The Research and Development (R&D) space on the ground floor with two levels of
residential uses above would limit the types of possible R&D uses. Conflicts may arise
with ducting and exhaust shafts for the R&D spaces.
¯A photometric drawing should be submitted that depicts an increased use of exterior
lighting.
¯Noise from passing trains could be an impact on the residential units on the sides of the
project as well as those facing the interior courtyard.
The applicant has submitted a written description (Attachment E) responding to the ARB’s
comments. The revised project plans include additional building details and colored renderings of
the building. An updated exterior colors and materials board will be available for board review
during the meeting.
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard)
Zoning Compliance
The proposed project does not comply with zoning requirements for the GM zone, since
residential (including mixed use) is not allowed in the GM zone. Also, the maximum allowable
FAR in the GM zone is 0.5, as compared to the 1.5 FAR proposed. The applicant has argued that
housing must be allowed on the site, since it is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the
City’s Housing Element. While this is accurate, there are currently no standards for allowing
mixed use in the GM zone. Attachment F compares the proposed project to the standards in effect
(using the RM-30 zone for the residential component) for mixed use in the GM zone prior to
Council action to delete residential uses in October of 2005. There are still numerous areas of
noncompliance with zoning under that scenario. Staff has recommended that the applicant revise
the project to comply with the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District criteria, which would accommodate the residential density, but would reduce the non-
residential portion of the project by half. Attachment G compares the project to the standards
adopted by the Council for the PTOD zoning.
Housing Sites Inventory_ and Housing Law
The Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes a Housing .Sites Inventory
identifying potential housing sites most suitable and likely to be developed for residential
purposes. Included on this list is a 3.92 acre site, which includes the portion of Page Mill Road
north of Park Boulevard, and a portion of the subject property (Attachment B), The anticipated
zoning of these parcels is RM-40 with a minimum dwelling unit yield of 120 units.
On October 11, 2005, the City Council passed a resolution removing all housing as a permitted
use in the General Manufacturing (GM) zone district. However, because these sites had been
identified previously in the Housing Element as housing sites, the City is obligated to permit
housing on them.
The applicant"s project includes three parcels, 195 Page Mill Road (APN# 132-32-003),
2825/2865/2873/2891 Park Boulevard (APN# 132-32-004) and 2901 Park Boulevard (APN# 132-
32-005) for a total of 2.41 acres. Of these three parcels, the approximately .81 acre parcel at 2901
Park Boulevard is not on the Housing Sites Inventory. It is unclear whether housing would be
allowed on this portion, of the site, but staff believes that it may be appropriate based on an earlier
(2004) City-initiated rezoning to RM-40, which was never adopted. The remaining two parcels
that are on the Housing Sites Inventory List are a total of approximately 1.56 acres which would
yield 62 dwelling units under RM-40 zoning regulations.
Senate Bill 1818 amended the State density bonus program and became effective on January 1,
2005. The relatively new law requires cities to offer incentives or concessions to encourage the
construction of affordable housing (allowances for mixed use, increased FAR or height,
reductions in parking, setbacks, open space, etc.) based on the percentage of affordable units in a
development. The law specifies that:
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard)
One incentive or concession is to be granted for projects with at least 10 percent of the
total units for lower income households;
Two incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least 20
percent of the total units for lower income households;
Three incentives or concessions are to be granted for projects that include at least 30
percent of the total units for lower income households.
The project would include 17% of the total number of residential units as below market rate
(BMR) units. The applicant may be eligible for one concession based on the number of affordable
housing units proposed. The City of Palo Alto (as well as most cities), however, has not adopted a
policy or program to identify what concessions or incentives are appropriate and the level of
discretion available to the City upon review. The applicant’s request for concessions under SB
1818 is not, in staff’s estimation, sufficient to support the project under SB 1818, particularly
since at least two concessions (mixed use, FAR, and setbacks/daylight plane exceptions) would be
needed. SB 1818 also allows a city to require financial information and analysis to demonstrate
that the concessions are needed to provide for the affordable units. The applicant has provided an
analysis that staff considers inadequate, lacking specific comparable costs and revenues, as well as
a capitalized income/loss stream. Staff believes that no project should be approved under SB 1818
until a Council policy is adopted regarding how the City interprets the legislation or at least
without the Council’s review of the project.
Pedestrian Transit Oriented District (PTOD)
On July 24, 2006, the City Council adopted on first reading the recommended PTOD combining
districts and criteria for context-based design. Second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for
September 11, 2006, and the ordinance would then become effective on October 11-, 2006. Also
on September 11, 2006, staff will request that the City Council initiate PTOD zoning for the
subject property. The Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council will
consider the rezoning at an undetermined meeting date.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Attachment J:
Draft ARB and DEE Findings for Denial.
Housing Opportunity Site #8-11.
Map of Subject Property.
Letter from the applicant, dated August 14, 2006.
Applicant’s Revised Project Description, dated August 30, 2006.
Project’s conformance with GM and RM-30 District Regulations (prepared by
staff).
Project’s conformance with the California Avenue PTOD (prepared by staff).
Context-Based Design Criteria for PTOD Zoning.
Major ARB Staff report dated June 1, 2006 (without attachments).
Site Section (prepared by applicant, ARB members only).
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard)
Attachment K:
Attachment L:
Pictorial exhibit of proj ect as viewed from Emerson Street (prepared by
applicant, ARB members only).
Development Plans and colored renderings (ARB members only).
COURTESY COPIES
Court House Plaza Company
Hoover Associates
Suzanne.Bayley, Emerson Street Neighborhood
Prepared By: Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner
Manager Review: Amy French, AICP, Acting Manager of Current Planning
05PLN-00175 (195 Page Mill Road, 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891 & 2901 Park Boulevard)
(8)
(A)New development of large sites maintains and enhances connectivity with a
hierarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated
with Palo Alto’s Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable);
(B)The diversity of building types increases with increased lot size (e.g., <l
acre = minimum 1 housing type; 1-2 acres = minimum 2 housing types;
greater than 2 acres -- minimum 3 housing types); and
(C)Where a site includes more than one housing type, each housing type should
respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, and design (e.g.,
lower density building types facing or adjacent to existing single-family
residences).
Sustainabilit¥ and Green Buildin~ Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design
should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the
environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for
compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it.
In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable
and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The
following considerations should be included in site and building design:
(A)Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and
natural ventilation;
(B)Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat
island effects;
(C)Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access;
(D)Maximize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and
permeable pavement;
(E)Use sustainable building materials.
(F)Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use;
(G)Create healthy indoor environments;
(H)Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One
example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants
to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements; and
(I)Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate
stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality
and erosion impacts to the creek environment.