HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4000
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4000)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/18/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 3159 El Camino Real Init. Study/Mit Neg Dec/ROLUA
Title: Public Hearing: City Council Review of a Proposed Mixed-use
Development on a 1.6 Acre Site Located at 3159 El Camino Real (between
Acacia and Portage Avenues), Adoption of the Environmental Review
Document (Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration) and Approval of
the Site and Design Review, CUP for Over 5,000 Square Feet of Office and
Design Enhancement Exceptions Application (via Record of Land Use Action).
The Proposed Four-story, 55-Foot Tall, 74,122 s.f. Development Would
Include Retail Space, Office Space, 48 Small Rental Residential Units, Two
Zoning Concessions (Increased Floor Area and Reduced Parking Spaces)
Under the State Density Bonus Law, and Would Replace the Existing 900 s.f.
“We Fix Macs” Commercial Building
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Architectural Review Board
recommend that the City Council approve the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A)
approving:
(1) A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Mitigation Monitoring Report;
(2) The Site and Design Review application for a four story, mixed-use building (67,506 square
feet of new floor area added to an existing 6,616 s.f. building) having a floor area ratio (FAR) of
1.06:1 on a 1.6 acre site (74,122 s.f. floor area:69,503 s.f. site area) to provide 48 apartment
units, including five Below Market Rate (BMR) units, and office and retail uses, with structured
parking facilities (at surface and underground) providing 216 parking spaces (including 11
puzzle lifts for 196 cars),
(3) A Density Bonus concession permitting increased floor area for both residential and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
commercial components of the project in the total amount of 4,619 square feet; and
(4) A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow 16,118 sq. ft. of office space on one parcel where
the limit is 5,000 s.f., recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission) on July 10, 2013, and
(5) Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) for five feet of additional building height and
alleviation of the build to line by two and a half feet for a greater setback, recommended by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) on August 1, 2013.
Executive Summary
This vertical mixed-use project on El Camino Real in the Commercial Service (CS) zone district
includes the demolition of a one story building (We Fix Macs store), and construction of a four-
story, 74,122 s.f. building incorporating two existing buildings (the Equinox Fitness annex and
Portage Avenue parking structure). This project would provide 48 rental apartments including
five below market rate units, ground floor spaces for retail, commercial recreation and
restaurant uses, and first and upper floor office space. The parking facilities, which meet city
requirements, provide a total of 216 parking spaces and the project is largely compliant with
the CS zone district development standards. Design Enhancement Exceptions and one
Concession under State Density Bonus Law are requested for features that are not compliant
with the CS zone standards. The Council is requested to approve the attached Record of Land
Use Action (Attachment A) for the entitlement application that includes Site and Design Review,
a CUP, and two DEEs. The RLUA references approval of the project’s environmental review
document (MND, Attachment M). The Planning & Transportation Commission and the
Architectural Review Board reviewed the application and recommended that the City Council
approve this project.
Background
Site Location/Existing Conditions
A site location map, provided as Attachment B, shows the 1.6 acre project site is located south
of Page Mill Road on State Route 82 (El Camino Real), bounded by Portage Avenue to the
southeast, Acacia Avenue to the northwest, and the developed site at 435 Acacia Avenue
(Equinox Gym building). The site consists of four parcels. A preliminary parcel map application
has recently been filed to merge the parcels, and a public hearing to consider the map
application was held on November 7, 2013. The site includes the 6,616 s.f. Equinox Gym annex
at 3127 El Camino Real, the 900 s.f. “We Fix Macs” building at 3159 El Camino Real, the parking
structure at 440 Portage and two surface parking lots. The site has five curb cuts onto public
rights of way: two curb cuts on Portage Avenue, one curb cut on the El Camino Real, and two
curb cuts on Acacia Avenue. To the north of Acacia Street is a surface parking lot, across El
Camino Real to the west are restaurants (McDonalds and Fish Market), across Portage Avenue
to the south is a retail use (Footlocker) and office buildings, and across the alley to the east is a
City of Palo Alto Page 3
retail use (Fry’s Electronics). The site is zoned CS and development standards are set forth in
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16. The site’s Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for this site is also Service Commercial.
Project Description, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Compliance
The proposed project is a 67,506 s.f. mixed use building which, when combined with the
existing 6,616 s.f. Equinox gym annex located on the site, would result in a floor area total of
74,122 s.f.. At the ground floor level, retail/restaurant/commercial recreation uses, and active
outdoor areas including a dining terrace, are proposed. A total of 48 residential apartment units
would be provided on the second, third, and fourth floors. The apartment units would be small
workforce type housing generally smaller than 900 square feet. There would be 28 studio units,
19 one bedroom units and one, two bedroom unit. The residential component includes five
below market rate apartment units (10% of the total units). Under State Law, a project that
provides a certain amount of affordable housing must be granted a “concession” from local
zoning standards. The project applicant requested concesssion is for greater floor area than the
maximum allowable area. The Density Bonus law also allows the residential component of the
project to provide fewer parking spaces than would otherwise be required for the residential
component of the project. Office space would be provided on portions of the first, second, and
third floors. New street trees would be planted (three on Acacia Avenue and one on Portage
Avenue) and the existing street trees around the perimeter of the project would remain.
A zoning table (Attachment C) provides data regarding the building’s compliance with CS zone
development standards. A Comprehensive Plan policy conformance table is provided as
Attachment D. The applicant’s project description is provided as Attachment E, and Attachment
F provides information on parking facilities. The Commission staff report (Attachment G) and
ARB staff reports (Attachments I and K) provide additional detail about the building treatments,
site improvements and landscaping. The building’s maximum height would be 55 feet above
grade. One DEE is a request for the height of the residential loft spaces to exceed the 50 foot
height limit by five additional feet. A second DEE is requested to depart from the build-to
requirement along the Portage Avenue frontage. This would allow for a greater setback of
seven feet six inches rather than a five foot setback required by code. The DEEs are described in
the Discussion section of this report. The building setback on El Camino Real would provide an
effective 12 foot sidewalk width as required in the CS development standards.
Parking Facilities
The project includes surface parking and one level of underground parking facilities (13 feet
below grade). A total of 216 onsite parking spaces are proposed. This includes 11 puzzle parking
lift machines, which would provide 196 of the parking spaces. The below grade garage would
connect to the existing below grade garage on Portage Avenue (serving tenants of 411-435
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Acacia Avenue) at the south east corner of the site. The main, finished garage floor level would
be located below the existing site grades, and three-level car stackers would be installed in the
garage. The lifts would extend approximately six to seven feet below the main garage floor.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided exclusively on Portage Avenue via two curb cuts;
all other existing curb cuts (on El Camino Real and Acacia Avenue) would be removed. The
parking spaces would be provided in both the existing two-level garage on Portage Avenue, and
in the new underground garage that would be accessed from a below grade connection to the
existing Portage Avenue garage. Fifteen (15) surface-level visitor parking spaces are proposed
beneath the residential wing of the proposed building.
Board and Commission Review
Planning and Transportation Commission
On July 10, 2013 the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) conducted a public
hearing and recommended City Council approval. There were four public speakers. Two
speakers voiced concerns over traffic and parking while the other two speakers spoke in favor
of the project noting the benefits of higher density housing. The Commission voted 5-0-2-0 to
recommend approval of the project and discussed the following items:
1. Parking lifts;
2. Parking requirements;
3. DEE for height; and
4. State density bonus law.
The Commission was supportive of the project and commented that it was real mixed use and
good urban design. The Commission agreed that the project implements the policies of the
Comprehensive plan. There were questions were primarily about the parking lifts. The
Commissioners asked if the occupants will be able to charge electric vehicles, how much power
the lifts used to operate, and if tenants would opt to use the other open parking spaces rather
than their own dedicated space within the parking lift. The Commission expressed the desire
for projects to be fully parked per the City’s parking code despite the reductions permitted by
the State when providing BMR units in a project.
Much of the Commission’s discussion was related to the requested DEE for height. Many
agreed that the additional five feet in height, associated with the loft spaces, was an
appropriate use of the DEE, resulting in a more unified roof element that was no taller than the
roof screens alone would have been. Since habitable space would result within the loft spaces,
due to the head room afforded by the increased height, one Commissioner stated that the DEE
process was not the appropriate process for the height exception. The State Density Bonus Law
City of Palo Alto Page 5
was also discussed. The Commission asked if the City was compelled to accept the BMR units
and the associated concessions that go along with them or if the City could refuse the BMRs
and eliminate the concessions. Staff responded that specific findings were required to deny the
applicant’s request for concessions under the Density Bonus law. Meeting minutes are provided
as Attachment H.
Architectural Review Board
Following the Commission’s review and recommendation, the ARB conducted a public hearing
on August 1, 2013 and continued its review to the August 15, 2013 ARB meeting, requesting the
applicant and staff address the following items:
1. Review the landscape plan for overall design and way finding;
2. Ensure the traffic ingress and egress points are understood and evaluate carefully in
relation to deliveries, move ins and outs, and visitors.
3. Look at providing private open spaces (balconies) at all of the residential units;
4. Review and further develop the privacy walls and railings at the balconies;
5. Include in the Conditions of Approval restrictions on the storage of items on the
balconies;
6. Review the wall at the trash enclosure on the Portage Avenue side of the project;
7. Provide specifics for material placement, clearly identified on the drawings;
8. Review the Acacia Avenue corner for design, and consider reorganizing the plan;
9. Consider the sidewalk width and evaluate the width relative to current Council
discussions.
The applicant requested a postponement of the public hearing to the August 29, 2013 ARB
meeting, when the ARB recommended approval of the project with a condition that the
following items return to the subcommittee for review:
1. Continuation of the trellis/projecting element around the Acacia corner;
2. Articulation of the fourth floor slab as it hits the elevator; and
3. Illumination of the portal (up lighting).
Meeting minutes of the ARB meetings of August 1, 2013 and August 29, 2013 are provided as
Attachments J and L, respectively.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Discussion
The site’s CS zone district and comprehensive plan land use designation allow approval of a
mixed-use project providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by
car. The project is also considered a pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly development
supported by the Comprehensive Plan policies. The Policy Implications section of this report
provides further discussion on policy compliance and benefits of the project.
The Council’s purview is to take final action on the MND and project application. Under the
Zoning Code the Council is the final decisionmaker for Site and Design review for this project
since it involves a mixed use project with more than four residential units. In situations where
Council is the final decisionmaker on Site and Design review, staff’s practice has also been to
bring other related project entitlments directly to Council for approval. Therefore Council is also
being asked to approve two related DEE’s and a CUP. Commission, ARB and staff have
recommended approval of the MND and all application components of the project, described
below for the Council.
Site and Design Review
The Site and Design Review process is required for mixed use projects providing more than four
residential dwelling units. The Site and Design Review process includes review by the
Commission, the ARB and the City Council. The Commission and ARB have both made positive
recommendations to City Council for final approval of the proposed mixed use project. The Site
and Design Review findings are provided within the RLUA.
DEE for Height
The height limit for the CS zone is 50 feet. The applicant has proposed a DEE to exceed the 50
foot height limit by 5 feet, for a total height of 55 feet. This additional five feet in height would
only occur at the loft roofs that pop up above the 50 foot height limit. The code allows
mechanical roof screens to exceed the 50 foot height limit by 15 feet. The proposed
mechanical roof screens are only proposed to be five feet tall. The exception is requested so
the height of the mechanical roof screens and the loft roofs could be integrated into one single
cohesive roof element, rather than having multiple roof screens randomly scattered across the
top of the building. The draft DEE findings are provided in the draft Record of Land Use Action.
DEE for Build-to-Line
The CS zone district requires that 33% of the building be built up to the setback on the side
streets (Acacia and Portage Avenues), and that 50% of the main building frontage (El Camino
Real) be at the setback line of zero to ten feet to create a 12 foot effective sidewalk width (curb
City of Palo Alto Page 7
to building face). On the 150 foot long Acacia Avenue frontage, 39% or 59’ of the building wall
is proposed to be placed at the five foot setback, therefore the requirement is met. On the 458
foot long Portage Avenue frontage, the length of the building wall is approximately 149 feet
long. To meet the 33% build to setback requirement, at least 49 linear feet of the building wall
would need to be built up to the five foot required setback. To accommodate the extension of
the residential balconies and the accessible ramp up to the elevated plaza, the building would
be built with a minimum seven foot six inch setback, rather than up to the required five foot
setback. This would be two and one half feet further back form the street than is required by
the code for 33% of the wall length. This greater setback than the build to requirement allows,
necessitates this DEE request. While the building wall is further from the setback than
required, the residential balconies at the second, third, and fourth floors would extend out
forward 11 inches beyond the property line. Findings for this DEE are provided in the RLUA.
Conditional Use Permit
The CS zoning limits office uses to no more than 5,000 square feet per parcel. The zoning also
contains a provision that allows the parcel to exceed the 5,000 s.f. office limit with a
Conditional Use Permit. Since the four parcels will be combined into one parcel a Conditional
Use permit to exceed the 5,000 s.f. limit of office space per parcel is included as part of the
application. The total amount of office space proposed within the project is 16,118 square feet.
This is only 21.7% of the total floor area within the project. The amount of office square
footage is similar to the amount of retail floor area, providing a balance between the two uses
while being considerably less than the proposed residential floor area proposed within the
project. The CUP findings are provided within the RLUA (Attachment A).
Concessions for FAR
Five of the proposed 48 rental apartment units would be provided as below market rate units.
This is 10% of the total number of units. The floor area allowance in the CS zone district is 1:1
or 69,503 square feet for this site. The maximum nonresidential floor area is 0.4:1 of the site or
27,801 sq.ft., where the proposed nonresidential floor area is 31,262 sq.ft. (3,460 sq.ft. over the
0.4:1 nonresidential FAR). Of the nonresidential floor area, .15:1 FAR or 10,425 sq.ft. of floor
area must be ground floor commercial area; the project includes 17,073 s.f. of ground floor
commercial area, meeting the minimum standard. The maximum residential floor area is 0.6:1
or 41,701 sq.ft. where 42,860 sq.ft. is proposed (1,158 sq.ft. over the 0.6:1 residential FAR).
In accordance with State Law, and to assist in providing the proposed BMR units, the applicant
has proposed to exceed the allowable 1:1 FAR (69,503 sq.ft. of floor area) by 4,619 square feet
for a total floor area of 74,122 square feet. The State Density Bonus Law allows for concessions
when at least 10% of the housing units proposed are affordable units. The requested
concession is an FAR of .06:1 over the maximum allowable 1:1 FAR. The housing component of
this project is a good example of the type of housing development envisioned by the new
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Housing Element. The sites were located on the City’s inventory. The project combines smaller
sized parcels to maximize density. The small units are designed to appeal to an urban
commuter and they are located close to transit. The requested concession is also consistent
with the Density Bonus recently recommended by the Commission.
Parking Reductions
The total number of parking spaces that would generally be required for the project based on
the city’s zoning requirements is 247 parking spaces. State density bonus law (Government
code Section 65915, also formerly known as SB 1818) provides the ability to use a lower
number of parking spaces when a project provides a minimum of 10% BMR units in a project.
The State law allows for a 31 space reduction in the number of parking spaces required in the
project. While the project would provide 31 spaces fewer than the City’s parking code requires,
with the state incentives for parking reductions, the project will be otherwise zoning compliant
for required parking. A breakdown of the parking regulations is provided as Attachment F.
Timeline
Application submittal: January 29, 2013
Mitigated Negative Declaration available for Public comment: May 31, 2013
Planning and Transportation Commission Review: July 10, 2013
Architectural Review Board Review: August 1, 2013
Architectural Review Board Review (2nd hearing): August 29, 2013
City Council Review: November 18, 2013
Resource Impact
The project’s creation of 16,118 square feet of office space, 8,746 square feet of commercial,
retail and restaurant space, and 42,642 square feet of residential space would yield the City
additional annual revenues in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes,
estimated in the range of $35,000 to $45,000.
One-time revenues would include development impact fees of approximately $986,642.00.
The additional demand created by this project for general City services, such as public safety,
will be absorbed within current service levels.
Policy Implications
City of Palo Alto Page 9
The proposal would establish a mixed use development within the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area,
a location specified in the Comprehensive plan as a mixed use district where mixed use
development is encouraged. The project would be compliant with a multitude of additional
Policies of the Comprehensive plan as shown in Attachment D.
Many of the City’s policies are reflected in the project’s design. The South El Camino Real
Guidelines, the Context-Based Design Criteria, and Comprehensive Plan policies are
implemented by this proposal. The project has pieced together smaller parcels to form a large
enough parcel that is able to realize the elements of the various City Guidelines. The building
would provide a strong street edge along El Camino Real while providing a wide 12 foot wide
effective sidewalk, at minimum, and various other pedestrian amenties. The building would
have four floors but the upper floors would be set back to reduce the apparent height and mass
of the building on the street. The building would have an elevated corner plaza at the
intersection of Portage Avenue and El Camino Real for outdoor seating, storefront entries that
face the street, two arcades providing pedestrian weather protection, and residential balconies
that relate to the street. The building façade is well articulated with ample fenestration and a
multitude of design elements including a corner glass element with sunshades, balconies at the
residential floors, a wide opening to an interior couryard and stair tower, and multiple
transitions in building materials with numerous colors and textures. The project would replace
surface parking lots, visible from El Camino Real, with underground parking and surface parking
that is at grade behind and beneath the new building. All curb cuts along El Camino Real would
be removed, resulting in improved pedestrian safety. Many of the project elements work
together to improve pedestrian access and serve to implement the vision of a more pedestrian-
oriented El Camino Real. In addition to the physical elements, the proposed uses within the
project also serve to reduce auto usage and encourage pedestrian activity. This is a true mixed
use project with a high number of small rental residential units not typically seen in mixed use
projects of the recent past. This is a housing product that is not commonly built in Palo Alto
and would be a welcome addition to the City’s rental housing stock. In addition to the
residential uses, the proposal also includes a reasonable balance of office and retail spaces.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment M) were prepared for the
project and the 30 day public review and comment period began on May 31, 2013 and ended
on July 1, 2013. The environmental analysis notes there are a few potentially significant
impacts that would require mitigation measures to reduce them to a less than significant level.
These include mitigations for dust control during excavation, protection for nesting birds,
building design for earthquake resistance, basement shoring, a Health and Safety Plan for
construction workers, a Remedial Risk Management Plan, collection of additional soil samples,
installation of a vapor barrier, vapor collection, and venting system, third party inspection of
vapor barrier and venting system, a Groundwater Mitigation Plan, development of a
Groundwater Extraction design, technical documents uploaded to the appropriate agencies,
and the evaluation and implementation of signal cycle length optimization and reallocation of
the green time.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)
Attachment B: Site Location Map (PDF)
Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)
Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table (DOC)
Attachment E: Applicant's Project Description Letter (PDF)
Attachment F: Parking Allocation Diagram (PDF)
Attachment G: P&TC Staff Report July 10, 2013 w/o attachments (PDF)
Attachment H: P&TC Minutes July 10, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment I: ARB Staff August 1, 2013 w/o attachments (PDF)
Attachment J: ARB minutes August 1, 2013 (DOC)
Attachment K: ARB Staff Report August 29, 2013 w/o attachments (PDF)
Attachment L: ARB Minutes August 29, 2013 (DOC)
Attachment M: MND and Initial Study (PDF)
Attachment N: Plans (TXT)
1
ACTION NO. 2013-0X
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 3159 EL CAMINO REAL: SITE
AND DESIGN REVIEW, DENSITY BONUS CONCESSION;
DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT APPROVAL
(13PLN-00040)
On November 18, 2013, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
approved the Site and Design Review, Design Enhancement
Exceptions (DEE) and Conditional Use Permit application for a
mixed use building in the Service Commercial (CS) zone district,
making the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Fergus Garber Young (FGY) Architects, on behalf of
Portage Avenue Portfolio, LLC has requested the City’s adoption
and approval for the following items:
(1) A Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
(2) Site and Design Review application for a new 67,506 s.f.
mixed-use building (added to an existing 6,616 s.f. building) on
a 1.6 acre site (resulting in a total 74,122 s.f. of floor area
on a 69,503 s.f. site, and FAR of 1.06:1) to provide 48
residential apartment units, including five below market rate
units, and office and retail uses, with structured parking
facilities (at surface and underground) providing 216 parking
spaces (including 11 puzzle lifts for 196 cars), including
Design Enhancement Exceptions (to be further described in ARB
draft ROLUA);
(3) A Conditional Use Permit (to allow 16,118 sq. ft. of office
space on one parcel where the limit is 5,000 s.f.);
(4) An FAR concession in the total amount of 4,619 under the
density bonus law;
(5) A Parcel Map to merge into one parcel of land the following
four parcels:
2
i) One parcel is occupied by a parking structure with one
level of surface parking, one level of below grade
parking and an existing elevated swimming pool.
ii) The second parcel is occupied by a 6,616 square foot
annex to the Equinox Fitness facility which is a
commercial recreation use (formerly The Pet Food
Depot), with associated surface parking.
iii) The third parcel is occupied by the 900 square foot We
Fix Macs store and its associated surface parking.
iv) The fourth parcel is a vacant parking lot with a small
attendant shack. These properties are designated on the
Comprehensive Plan land use map as Service Commercial, and are
located within the Service Commercial (CS) zone district.
B. The Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission) reviewed the Site and Design Review and Conditional
Use Permit applications, density bonus FAR concession and
Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 10, 2013, and recommended
approval.
C. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the
application for Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement
Exceptions on August 1, 2013, and continued the item for further
review. The ARB heard the item for a second time on August 29,
2013 and recommended approval.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.
The City, as the lead agency for the Project, has determined
that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be required for
the project subject to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Public Notice period for
the MND began on May 31, 2013 and concluded on July 1, 2013.
SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings
1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing
or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The proposed mixed use building would introduce compatible
and harmonious uses in relation to adjacent and nearby uses in
this diverse and eclectic neighborhood. The proposed building
and uses would be sited such that they would not result in an
3
impact on adjacent properties. The traffic and parking for the
project have been reviewed and it has been determined that the
use would be adequately parked and that the traffic volumes
would not result in an impact to local intersections or
roadways. The proposal removes several existing curb cuts and
widens the sidewalk on the El Camino Real frontage, improving
pedestrian safety.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The approval of the project would maintain the desirability
of investment by providing a project with a mix of uses that
would assist in the reduction of vehicular trips by providing
small unit rental housing for workers in close proximity to jobs
and transit and would assist in improving the neighborhood by
making use of a series of underutilized parcels and implementing
the City’s Guidelines in relationship to El Camino Real
development. The proposal would be executed in a manner that
has the potential to improve the aesthetic quality of the area.
Construction of all improvements will be governed by the
regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform
Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a
high quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental design and
ecological balance are observed in the project.
The proposal, as a mixed use infill project, is intended to
benefit the environment by providing new housing within the
city, to reduce vehicle commute times. Efficient use of space,
reductions in the depth of excavation, and the reduction in the
volume of soil excavation are achieved with the use of 11
parking lifts rather than additional levels of below grade
parking. The proposal also provides deep overhangs and
sunscreens to reduce solar heat gain.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
The project is compliant with several comprehensive plan
policies as noted in the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings
4
1. 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;
The project, as conditioned, would not result in
detrimental or injurious impacts to property or improvements in
the vicinity. The proposal has no significant impacts that are
not able to be mitigated and would improve the area by providing
a mix of uses to better serve the needs of the community. The
proposed office use is a reasonable amount of office space in
comparison to the other uses proposed for the site. The
proposed commercial area would be a total of 31,262 s.f.
Approximately half of the commercial square footage (15,144
s.f.) would be retail, commercial recreation (gym), or
restaurant uses. The 16,118 square feet of office space is
only slightly over half of the commercial square footage in the
project.
2. Be located and conducted in a manner in accord
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this
title (Zoning).
The project is compliant with several comprehensive
plan policies as noted in the Comprehensive Plan Compliance
Table.
SECTION 5. ARB/Design Enhancement Exception Findings
1) The design of the proposed mixed use development is
consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City's
Comprehensive Plan in that the site is designated as Service
Commercial, which allows for mixed use development and
compliance with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies is
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan compliance table.
2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment
of the site in that the proposed building is located within a
commercial zone district where a mixture of uses is common. The
building would be located on a significant arterial roadway
where larger commercial buildings with mixed uses are
encouraged;
3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project
in that the design appropriately accommodates all the proposed
uses, providing access in the right places, elevating the
residences off the street, improving pedestrian accessibility
5
and safety, and addressing the street in such a way as to
provide building mass close to the street without overwhelming
it;
4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified
design character or historical character, the design is
compatible with such character. Not applicable. The area does
not have a unified design character.
5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different designated land uses in
that the adjacent land uses are also commercial in nature and
the proposed project integrates with them rather than
conflicting;
6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both
on and off the site in that the proposed mixed use building
would be compatible with the other uses in the area and the uses
within the building would be compatible with each other. For
instance, one could live and work within the project as well as
use the gym facility and the restaurant services without leaving
the project site;
7) The planning and siting of the various functions and
buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and
provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the
general community in that the proposed design provides a large
central courtyard area that provides easy pedestrian access
through the project;
8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate
to the design and the function of the structures in that ample
open space is provided in the form of private patio areas for
the residences and office users, large dinning terrace that is
both covered and uncovered, and the large central courtyard that
would be open to all building occupants;
9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support
the main functions of the project in that the proposal includes
6
sufficient parking and areas to accommodate trash and recycling
needs of the development;
10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe
and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that
adequate parking areas are proposed both at the surface and
below grade, bicycle parking provided at various locations
throughout the site, and safe pedestrian access through the
project;
11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and
integrated with the project in that the proposal will ensure the
preservation of all existing street trees;
12) The materials, textures, colors and details of
construction and plant material are appropriate expressions of
the design and function in that the building is proposed to have
a multitude of exterior finish materials with different colors
and textures providing a high level of detail and visual
interest;
13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by
the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms
and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and
functional environment in that the proposal includes landscape
material where possible considering that the project sits upon a
below grade parking structure. Landscape planters and potted
plants are placed around the perimeter and through the open
courtyard;
14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site,
capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a
variety, which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance;
15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable
design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and
nontoxic, with high quality spaces and high recycled content
materials. The project would comply with the stricter CalGreen
7
tier 2 requirements. The residential portion would comply with
Build-it-Green requirements.
16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose
of architectural review, which is to:
a. Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city;
b. Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in
the city;
c. Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of
land and improvements;
d. Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the
immediate site or in adjacent areas; and
e. Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic
quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate
of each other.
The project as designed, and as conditioned, would promote an
environment that is of high design quality and variety.
The requested Design Enhancement Exceptions are consistent with
the following findings as stated in PAMC 18.76.050 (c).
DEE Findings for Height (five feet over the 50 foot code
limitation)
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property or site improvements
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
zone district.
This finding can be made in the affirmative. The proposed
building would span the entire block, resulting in an expansive
roof that would require multiple roof screen areas to condition
the various spaces within the building.
(2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance
of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character
of the project and preserve an existing or proposed
8
architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be
accomplished through strict application of the minimum
requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review
findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d).
This finding can be made in the affirmative. The five feet in
additional height would allow the loft roof spaces to pop up out
of the roof allowing for the combination of these elements with
the mechanical roof screen to create one seamless and cohesive
screening element that is architecturally compatible with the
building and more visually attractive than multiple individual
mechanical roof screens.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or
site improvement that 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.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed
height exception for the individual loft spaces would not result
in additional height beyond the height of the permitted height
of the mechanical roof screens. The loft and roof screen element
would also be set back 14 feet from the face of the fourth floor
and 39 feet back from the front face of the building, reducing
its visibility from the street.
DEE for alleviation of the build to line requirement by 2.5 feet
on the Portage Avenue frontage.
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property or site improvements
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
zone district.
This finding can be made in the affirmative. The project site is
not a level site and is lower at the El Camino Real and Portage
Avenue corner. The State accessibility requirements dictate
that access be provided to the elevated dinning terrace from the
sidewalk.
9
(2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance
of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character
of the project and preserve an existing or proposed
architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be
accomplished through strict application of the minimum
requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review
findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d).
This finding can be made in the affirmative. The 2.5 foot
additional setback from the required build to line of five feet
would allow for an accessible ramp from the sidewalk to the
dinning terrace/corner plaza and would move the building
slightly further from the street, providing a little extra
breathing room in that location.
(3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or
site improvement that 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.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed
additional setback of 2.5 feet beyond the required build to line
of five feet is very minor in nature and would not result in a
detrimental visual impact to the street.
SECTION 6. Site and Design Review and Conditional Use
Permit Approval Granted. Site and Design Review, DEEs and
Conditional Use Permit Approval are granted by the City Council
under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).070, and Section
18.76.010 for application 13PLN-00040, subject to the conditions
of approval in Section eight of the Record.
SECTION 7. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by FGY
Architects, consisting of 39 pages, dated July 25, 2013, and
received July 25, 2013, except as modified to incorporate the
10
conditions of approval in Section Seven. A copy of these plans
is on file in the Department of Planning and Community
Environment. This document, including the conditions of approval
in Section eight, shall be printed on the cover sheet of the
plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
SECTION 8. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with plans received on August 22, 2013,
except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of
approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by
the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or City
Council. The following conditions of approval shall be printed
on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building
Permit application.
2. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the
allowances specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
3. Any existing city street trees shall be maintained and
protected during construction per City of Palo Alto standard
requirements.
4. All landscape material shall be well maintained and
replaced if it fails.
5. Any exterior modifications to the building or property
shall require Architectural Review. This includes any new
signs.
6. Mitigation Measures C-1: The effects of construction
activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated
levels of particulate matter downwind of construction activity.
Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at
nearby properties. This impact is considered potentially
significant but normally mitigatable by implementing the
following control measures:
During demolition of existing structures:
11
Water active demolition areas to control dust generation
during demolition and pavement break-up.
Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever
feasible.
During all construction phases:
Pave, apply water 3x/daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas at construction sites.
Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for
ten days or more).
Enclose, cover, water 2x/daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to
prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible.
The above measures include feasible measures for
construction emissions identified by the BAAQMD for large
sites. According to the District threshold of significance
for construction impacts, implementation of the measures
would reduce construction impacts of the project to a less
than significant level.
7. Mitigation Measures B-1: The applicant shall abide by
all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and
Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as
published in the Federal Register (Vol. 70, No. 49; March 15,
2005).
Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may
contain nesting birds, there may be nesting birds in existing
vegetation abutting the proposed project site. To protect any
nesting birds, the proposed project may avoid construction
during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife
biologist (to be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey
for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA and/or Sections
3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity
of the project site. This survey shall cover all areas that
12
would be disturbed as a result of construction-related
activities during the nesting period, and shall include a
“buffer zone” (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the
bounds of the proposed project construction area) which shall be
determined by the biologist based on his or her professional
judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site
habitat.
This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days
prior to the commencement of construction activities. The
wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly
detailing the findings of the survey. No construction shall be
conducted until this report has been provided to the City and
the City has authorized in writing the commencement of
construction activities in accord with the biologist’s findings.
8. Mitigation Measures F-1: The design of all buildings
shall be designed in accordance with current earthquake
resistant standards, including the 2007 CBC guidelines and
design recommendations regarding the potential for localized
liquefaction presented in the Geotechnical Investigation
provided by Murray Engineers.
9. Mitigation Measure F-2: Prior to building permit
approval, the applicant shall submit a well-designed shoring
system for the basement excavation to be designed by a licensed
engineer subject to review and approval by Public Works
Department.
10. Mitigation Measures H-1: A project specific Health and
Safety Plan (HASP) and a Site Mitigation Plan (SMP), would be
implemented, and adhered to during construction and excavation
activities. All workers on site should be read and understand
the HASP and SMP, and copies should be maintained on site during
construction and excavation at all times.
11. Mitigation Measures H-2: A Remedial Risk Management
Plan (RRMP) should be developed and followed by current and
future owners, tenants, and operators. The plan will include the
implementation of the described remedies and engineering design.
12. Mitigation Measures H-3: Additional collection of four
soil samples at the site should be completed after the base
excavation to 14 feet bgs is achieved. This soil-gas collection
will verify if the removal of the clay cap has resulted in a
reduction of residual soil gas below the residential ESLs.
Current PCE and TCE concentrations in soil-gas are one or two
orders of magnitude greater that what would be expected to
accumulate based on current groundwater concentrations of PCE
and TCE, and would not be likely to reach the current
13
concentrations in the future if the reduction of groundwater
contaminants continues as it is expected to.
13. Mitigation Measures H-4: If soil-gas concentrations
collected following the initial base excavation phase have not
resulted in significant decrease, a sub slab passive vapor
collection and passive vapor collection and passive venting
system designed full vapor barrier would be implemented to
mitigate against the identified VOC soil-vapor intrusion (see
Mitigation Measure H-5 for vapor intrusion mitigation system).
14. Mitigation Measure H-5: Prior to issuance of the
occupancy permit the applicant shall file documentation from an
independent consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system
design and installation for final approval by a third party
inspection service reporting to the City financed by the
applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes,
transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.) of the vapor
intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in
accordance with recommendations of the Vapor Mitigation System
and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full
vapor barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray applied
membrane below elevator shafts, stairwells, pipe chases, and
entire floor slab, as part of the active vapor collection and
venting system (i.e., driven by electric fans at the effluent
end of the VMS riser pipes enhanced by outside air entering
through inlet vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate
potential soil vapor intrusion.
15. Mitigation Measure H-6: A Groundwater Mitigation Plan
shall be provided for lowering ground water levels during the
excavation phase that may reach depths to 22-feet bgs which is
about 4-feet below the expected level of first encountered
groundwater. The mitigation plan shall specify the number of
groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps to be
installed around the site perimeter throughout the project
duration. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final
approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance
of City permits.
16. Mitigation Measure H-7: A detailed groundwater
extraction design shall be developed including a staging plans
for dewatering system, including all required chemical testing,
dewatering systems layout, well depths, well screen lengths,
dewatering pump locations, pipe sizes and capacities, grades,
filter sand gradations, surface water disposal method,
permitting and location. This design shall be prepared and
submitted for final approval by the City’s Public Works
Department prior to issuance of City permits.
14
17. Mitigation Measure H-8: This and future technical
reports should be uploaded (as required) to the appropriate
regulatory agencies- including uploads to the SCCDEH’s ftp
system and the State Geo Tracker system.
18. Mitigation Measures T-1: The applicant shall conduct
an evaluation and implementation of signal cycle length
optimization and reallocation of the green time at the
intersection of El Camino Real and West Charleston Road.
19. An Affordable Rental Housing Agreement for the five
units designated for Lower Income Households shall be executed
and recorded prior to building permit issuance.
20. The Development Impact Fees, approximated at
$986,642.00, shall be paid prior to building permit issuance.
Water Gas Wastewater Utilities Department
21. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the
existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-
built plans to verify the existing loads) and verify the
existing water meters and sizes of fire services to determine
the capacity fee credit for the existing load. The properties
440 Portage (existing 6” fire service and two 1” water meters),
3159 El Camino Real (existing one 5/8” water meter), 3111 El
Camino Real (existing one 5/8” water meter) and 3127 El Camino
Real (existing 6” fire service, one 5/8” water meter and one 1-
1/2” water meter) are being combined for the new building.
22. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit a
request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters
including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be
disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of
request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building
inspection division after all utility services and/or meters
have been disconnected and removed.
23. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-
wastewater service connection application - load sheet(s) (one
load sheet required for each unit or place of business for City
of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the
information requested for utility service demands (water in
fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture
units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior)
loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new
loads plus any existing loads to remain).
15
24. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for
utility construction. The plans must show the size and location
of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire
service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift
stations and any other required utilities.
25. New water, gas or wastewater utilities shall be
connected to Portage or Acacia Ave. No new utilities are allowed
from El Camino Real.
26. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence
of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water,
recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc.).
27. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and
upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as
necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility
includes all costs associated with the design and construction
for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or
services.
28. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow
calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site
and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater
capacity needed to service the development and adjacent
properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing
may be required to determined current flows and water pressures
on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped
by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to
perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the
existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The
report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based
on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as
determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall
meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering
section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will
be permitted.
29. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or
services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering
section of the Utilities Department four copies of the
installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site
improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department
design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way
shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed
and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor
shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of
16
construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials
to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section.
The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work
until the improvement plan and other submittals have been
approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section.
After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant
shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor
installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of
Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor
installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls
at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the
City clean out for wastewater laterals.
30. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA
backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new
water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17,
sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be
installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water
meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic
service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the
plans.
31. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is
required for the existing or new water connection for the fire
system to comply with requirements of California administrative
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double
detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler
systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector
assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent
to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the
location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans.
32. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by
the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross
connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the
meter and ++the assembly.
33. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic
(ABS, PVC, or PE) must be abandoned per WGW Utilities standards.
34. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and
connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added
demand on existing services. The approved relocation of
services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be
performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the
relocation.
35. Each unit or place of business shall have its own
water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have
17
its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection
shown on the plans.
36. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is
required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the
location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall
be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service
will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape
plans submitted with the application for a grading or building
permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency
standards.
37. A new gas service line installation is required. Show
the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location
must conform with utilities standard details.
38. All existing water and wastewater services that will
not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities
procedures.
39. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets,
concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over
existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’
horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base
to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a
conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be
relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field
conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing
water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water,
gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within
10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new
water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters.
40. To install new gas service by directional boring, the
applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of
the building for each lateral exiting the building. This
cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for
verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by
directional boring.
41. All utility installations shall be in accordance with
the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas &
wastewater.
42. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from
Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-
way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW
engineering section.
18
Environmental Services Division
General Comments:
43. Consider providing separate service for residential
and commercial units
Service Levels:
Commercial: Garbage – 4-yard bin, Recycling – 3-yard bin,
Compostables – 2-yard bin.
Residential: Garbage – 1-yard bin, Recycling – 2-yard bin,
Compostables – 96-gallon cart.
44. PAMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
(A) Assure that development provides adequate and
accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for
the storage of trash and recyclable materials in
appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and
recycling areas are located as far from abutting
residences as is reasonably possible. (B)
Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas
shall be accessible to all residents or users of the
property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located,
sized, and designed to encourage and facilitate
convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable
areas shall be screened from public view by masonry or
other opaque and durable material, and shall be
enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access
shall be provided where feasible. Chain link
enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash
disposal and recycling structures shall be
architecturally compatible with the design of the
project. (v) The design, construction and
accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall
be subject to approval by the architectural review
board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by
that board and approved by the city council pursuant
to Section 18.76.020.
19
45. PAMC 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements
46. The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or
expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper
storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the
solid waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and
which will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The
design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections
18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080,
18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080,
18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code.
All Services:
47. Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street
width and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues
pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be provided
for vehicle access.
48. Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by
the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated
to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is
used.
49. Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or
charges will apply.
50. Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles
or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs"
51. Garbage, Recycling, and Yard Waste/Compostables
cart/bin location and sizing
Office Building
52. The proposed commercial development must follow the
requirements for recycling container space . Project plans must
show the placement of recycling containers, for example, within
the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space
20
should be provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on
each floor/office or alcoves for the placement of recycling
containers.
53. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal
access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and
compostables.
54. Collection cannot be performed in underground.
Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical
clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push
services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push
containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be
responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible
location for collection.
55. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’
for bin service.
56. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to
reduce wear and tear on walls.
57. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and
compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto
(650) 493-4894.
Restaurants and food service establishments only:
58. Please contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894
to maximize the collection of compostables in food preparation
areas and customer areas.
59. For more information about compostable food service
products, please contact City of Palo Alto Zero Waste at (650)
496-5910.
60. Multi-Family Residential
61. The proposed multi-family development must follow the
requirements for recycling container space . All residential
developments, where central garbage, recycling, and compostables
containers will serve five or more dwelling units, must have
space for the storage and collection of recyclables and
compostables. This includes the provision of recycling chutes
where garbage chutes are provided. Project plans must show the
placement of recycling and compostables containers, for example,
within the details of the solid waste enclosures.
21
62. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal
access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and
compostables.
63. Collection cannot be performed in underground.
Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical
clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push
services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push
containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be
responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible
location for collection.
64. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’
for bin service.
65. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to
reduce wear and tear on walls.
66. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and
compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto
(650) 493-4894.
PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled
Facilities
67. New buildings and residential developments providing
centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and
duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a
bin/dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste
streams (garbage, recycling, and yard waste/compostables) and
designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon
and runoff from the area.
Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas
PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2)
68. Newly constructed and remodeled Food Service
Establishments (FSEs) shall include a covered area for all
dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of
trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and
grease (FOG) or tallow.
69. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to
prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area.
70. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for
recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs
are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a
Grease Control Device (GCD).
22
71. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately
sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in
the covered area.
72. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or
converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the
facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the
requirement.
73. It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the
next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease
discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between
cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are
available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic,
reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal).
74. The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge
prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution
prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer
Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances
include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage
fixtures, record keeping and construction projects.
PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD)
75. Covered projects shall comply with construction and
demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements
established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code).
In addition, all debris generated by a covered project must haul
100 percent of the debris not salvaged for reuse to an approved
facility as set forth in this chapter.
76. Contact the City of Palo Alto’s Green Building
Coordinator for assistance on how to recycle construction and
demolition debris from the project, including information on
where to conveniently recycle the material.
Public Works Engineering Department
OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS:
77. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the
applicant must replace the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or
driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the
frontages of the property on all streets. Contact the Public
Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the
inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The
site plan must show the extent of the replacement work or
include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no
23
work is required. The plan must note that any work in the
right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a
licensed contractor who must first obtain a Permit for
Construction in the Public Right-of-Way (“Street Work Permit”)
from PWE at the Development Center. Additional review from
Caltrans may be required. Please see the “Caltrans” note on page
5.
78. STREET RESURFACING: The full width of the street shall
be resurfaced (grind and overlay) along the frontages of the
project on Portage Avenue and Acacia Avenue.
79. PEDESTRIAN & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS: Directional
curb ramps, median refuges, or other improvements to the
pedestrian crossing at El Camino Real and Portage Avenue will be
considered in accordance with input from the Planning and
Transportation Division. Additional streetscape design elements
such as bike racks, trash cans, and decorative street lights
will be considered and placed in the public sidewalk per design
guidelines outlined in the El Camino Real Master Planning Study
and future input from the Architectural Review Board.
80. VTA BUS STOP: The existing VTA bus stop in the
Westbound direction on the near side of the Portage and El
Camino Real intersection is substandard. The location negatively
impacts VTA bus and Stanford Marguerite Shuttle operations and
the location presents a safety hazard due to conflicts with
offset intersecting streets and driveways. The following is
requested of the applicant and not a required condition: VTA has
requested that the stop be relocated to the sidewalk along the
project frontage and that a concrete bus pad be installed as
part of the project. VTA encourages the applicant to design a
bus shelter that mirrors the project architecture, but the
applicant would be required to maintain the structure.
Alternatively, VTA may provide a standard shelter.
81. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to
replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public
right-of-way along the property’s frontage. Call Public Works’
arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can
determine what street tree work will be required for this
project. The site or tree plan must show street tree work that
the arborist has determined including the tree species, size,
location, staking and irrigation requirements. Any removal,
relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching
or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by
the Public Works’ arborist. The plan must note that in order to
do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit
24
for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way (“Street Tree
Permit”) from Public Works’ Urban Forestry.
82. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this
project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino
Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a
maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to
maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work
done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has
retained the right to review and permit new or proposed
abandonments of ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as
well as the installation of traffic control devices as part of
this project. Please include a record of Caltrans approval on
the plan set submitted for a building permit.
83. PARCEL MAP: This project is merging several properties
under planning application 12PLN-00468. Prior to building permit
issuance, the Parcel Map shall be approved by the City of Palo
Alto and recorded by Santa Clara County.
84. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS: Public access agreements are
required for the additional sidewalk space between the building
edge and the property line.
85. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project must meet the
latest State Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (SRWQCB) C.3
provisions. The applicant is required to satisfy all current
storm water discharge regulations and shall provide calculations
and documents to verify compliance. All projects that are
required to treat stormwater will need to treat the permit-
specified amount of storm water runoff with the following low
impact development methods: rainwater harvesting and reuse,
infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. However,
biotreatment (filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils
before discharging to the storm drain system) will be allowed
only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and
evapotranspiration are infeasible at the project site. Vault-
based treatment will not be allowed as a stand-alone treatment
measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration,
or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault-based treatment
measures may be used in series with biotreatment, for example,
to remove trash or other large solids.
Reference: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.11.030(c)
The applicant must incorporate permanent storm water pollution
prevention measures that treat storm water runoff that are site
specific. The prevention measures shall be reviewed by a
qualified third-party reviewer who needs to certify that it
complies with the Palo Alto Municipal Code requirements. This
25
is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
third-party reviewer shall be acquired by the applicant and
needs to be on the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program’s list of qualified consultants.
(http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/consultants2012.htm) Any consultant
or contractor hired to design/and/or construct a storm water
treatment system for the project cannot certify the project as a
third-party reviewer.
Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water
treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy
permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit
to the City a certification for approval that the project’s
permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance
to the approved permit drawings. The project must also enter
into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the
ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge
compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be
executed prior to permit issuance.
The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to
Matadero Creek” logo in blue color on a white background,
adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are
available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance
Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit
may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include
the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading
and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the
Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of
this project.
86. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP’s): The applicant is
required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan.
In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the
plan shall identify BMP’s to be incorporated into the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required
for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP’s to be
incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality.
(Resources and handouts are available from PWE. Specific
reference is made to Palo Alto’s companion document to “Start at
the Source”, entitled “Planning Your Land Development Project”).
The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage
plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans.
26
The developer shall require the contractor to incorporate BMP's
for storm water pollution prevention in all construction
operations, in conformance with the SWPPP prepared for the
project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris
(soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other
waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter
16.09).
87. PARKING STRUCTURE DRAINS: Drains within the covered
floors of the parking structures shall be connected to oil-water
separators and sanitary sewer lines. Stormwater runoff from any
exposed surface or roof parking areas without canopies need to
be treated per C.3 requirements.
88. GREASE/OIL REMOVAL DEVICE: If there will be a kitchen
and food serving area in the new building, any drains in the
food service facilities shall be connected to a grease removal
device and located on private property.
89. LOADING DOCK: Any loading dock areas shall be covered
and graded so that no storm water enters and flows through the
space. Any runoff from the loading dock area shall be kept
isolated from the storm drainage system. If the loading
area/dock contains a drain, it shall be connected to the
sanitary sewer through a manually operated fail-safe valve.
90. CENTRALIZED DUMPSTER AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURE: Please
label the location of the dumpster and recycling enclosure for
the project. If there will be a separate enclosure for the
restaurant, please label the location. The dumpster and
recycling areas for the food service facility must be adequately
roofed or covered; it is recommended that the dumpster and
recycling enclosure for other uses be covered.
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at
the building permit phase. You can obtain various plan set
details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's
Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works’
website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/permits.asp
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
91. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: Since more than 10,000
square feet of the land area on the project site is being
disturbed, a Grading and Excavation Permit needs to be obtained
from PWE at the Development Center before the building permit
27
can be issued. Refer to the Public Works’ website for
“Excavation and Grading Permit Instructions.” For the Grading
and Excavation Permit application, various documents are
required including a grading and drainage plan, soils report,
Interim and Final erosion and sediment control, storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), engineer-stamped and signed
shoring plan, and a copy of the Division of Occupational Safety
and Health (DOSH) excavation permit. Refer to our website for
“Grading and Excavation Permit Application” and guidelines.
Except for the soils report and the DOSH permit, include the
required documents and drawings in the building permit set
drawings. Indicate the amount of soil to be cut and filled for
the project.
92. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include
a grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional
that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and showing
drainage flows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Other
site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference
only, and should be so noted. No utility infrastructure should
be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of these
other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent
Building Permit application.
Site grading, excavation, and other site improvements that
disturb large soil areas may only be performed during the
regular construction season (from April 16 through October 15th)
of each year the permit is active. The site must be stabilized
to prevent soil erosion during the wet season. The wet season is
defined as the period from October 15 to April 15. Methods of
stabilization are to be identified within the Civil sheets of
the improvement plans for approval.
93. SOILS REPORT: A detailed site-specific soil report
prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be
submitted which includes information on water table and sub-
grade construction issues. Measures must be undertaken to
render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all
projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of
groundwater is allowed. In general, PWE recommends that
structures be constructed in such a way that they do not
penetrate existing or projected ground water levels.
94. DEWATERING: Excavation for sub-grade structures may
require dewatering. PWE only allows groundwater drawdown well
dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. If
28
dewatering is required, the dewatering plan must be submitted to
Public Works as part of a Street Work Permit. Dewatering is
only allowed from April through October due to inadequate
capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for
this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level.
If the deepest excavation is expected to be within 3 feet of the
highest anticipated groundwater level, the contractor can
determine the actual groundwater depth immediately prior to
excavation by installing piezometers or by drilling exploratory
holes. Alternatively, the contractor can excavate and hope not
to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop
excavation and submit a dewatering plan to PWE for approval and
install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate.
Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants
prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering.
If testing is required, the contractor must retain an
independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the
contaminants as specified by Public Works.
95. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout
much of the City, PWE prohibiting the pumping and discharging of
groundwater. Sub-grade drainage systems such as perforated pipe
drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under
the slabs are not allowed. PWE recommends that a waterproofing
consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier
and waterproofing systems for the basement.
96. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement
excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent
private property or into the City right-of-way without having
first obtained written permission from the private property
owners and/or an encroachment permit from PWE at the Development
Center.
97. SWPPP: If the proposed development will disturb more
than one acre of land, the applicant will be required to comply
with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails
filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee,
and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both
construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water
quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two
copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to PWE for review and
approval prior to issuance of the building permit.
98. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-
sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must
be included in the plan set. Copies are available from
29
Development Center or on our website. Also, the applicant must
provide a site-specific storm water pollution control plan sheet
in the plan set.
99. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: Since the project will be
creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious
surface, the applicant shall provide calculations of the
existing and proposed impervious surface areas. The
calculations need to be filled out in the Impervious Area
Worksheet for Land Developments form which is available at the
Development Center or on our website, then submitted with the
building permit application.
100. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY - If any work is proposed in
the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway
approach, curb inlet, storm water connections or utility
laterals, the following note shall be included on the Site Plan
next to the proposed work:
“Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an
approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to
commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE
BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.”
101. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a
logistics plan to PWE prior to commencing work that addresses
all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not
limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes,
material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane
lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water
pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected
businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to
a street work permit.
102. FINALIZATION OF BUILDING PERMIT: The Public Works
Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the
finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be
finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-
site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP’s shall be
completed prior to sign-off.
Water Quality
103. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
30
The project is located in an area of suspected or known
groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must
include the following procedure for construction dewatering:
104. Prior to discharge of any water from construction
dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The
analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to
the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598.
Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal
requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be
discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the
concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for
discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional
Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to
discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC
concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits
contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a
treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior
to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water
discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system
must be free of sediment.
105. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) Carwash Required
New Multi-family residential units and residential development
projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for
occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to
capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an
oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer
system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency
of at least once every six months or more frequently if
recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water
separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The
area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent
the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system
106. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking
Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected
to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100
gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system
31
107. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled
Facilities
New buildings and residential developments providing centralized
solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex
residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The
area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and
designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon
and runoff from the area.
108. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal
gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing
asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any
residential, commercial or industrial building for which a
building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles
or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this
prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on
historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing
material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the
purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall
be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2
buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and
Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
109. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
(i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may
be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or
equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-
rainy season and during periods of loading dock
operation.
(ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease,
oil, or waste products are handled or used within the
loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system
shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer
system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe
valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during
the non-rainy season and during periods of loading
dock operation. The area in which the drain is located
shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by
berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment
approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for
all rainwater contacting the loading dock site.
32
110. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain
to the storm drain system.
111. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-
ray films) shall either submit a treatment application
or waste hauler certification for all spent silver
bearing solutions. 650-329-2421.
112. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers
No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer
system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool,
spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that
contains any of the following:
(1) Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter;
(2) Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10
mg/liter;
(3) Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
(4) Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or
(5) Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
113. The above limits shall apply to any of the above-
listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system,
pool, spa or fountain water.
114. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume
of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems
discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to
meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter.
115. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass,
shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in
contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and
short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate
33
materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper
piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
116. PAMC 16.09.220(c)(1) Dental Facilities That Remove or
Place Amalgam Fillings
An ISO 11143 certified amalgam separator device shall be
installed for each dental vacuum suction system. The installed
device must be ISO 11143 certified as capable of removing a
minimum of 95 percent of amalgam. The amalgam separator system
shall be certified at flow rates comparable to the flow rate of
the actual vacuum suction system operation. Neither the
separator device nor the related plumbing shall include an
automatic flow bypass. For facilities that require an amalgam
separator that exceeds the practical capacity of ISO 11143 test
methodology, a non-certified separator will be accepted,
provided that smaller units from the same manufacturer and of
the same technology are ISO-certified.
117. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains
Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may
not be placed in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous
wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating
fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater
are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for
all such materials and equipment
118. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm
drain sumps.
119. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas,
Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems,
pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm
drain system.
120. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No
dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent.
Undesignated Retail Space:
34
121. PAMC 16.09
Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of
the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to
meet all requirements that would have been applicable during
design and construction. If such undesignated retail space
becomes a food service facility the following requirements must
be met:
Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project:
122. A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC
Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes
123. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and
installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2)
124. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007
California Plumbing Code.
125. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of
500 gallons.
126. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the
plans. See a sizing calculation example below.
127. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or
larger than what is specified on the plans.
128. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be
installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be
installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access
points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection,
cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors
shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the
entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5)
129. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum
of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping,
baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The
plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on
the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works
Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less
than three manholes due to manufacture available options or
adequate visibility.
130. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all
GCDs.
35
131. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC
1002.2 & 1004)
132. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be
rated and indicated on plans.
133. B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section
16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes
134. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to
the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly
labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their
discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line,
shall be included on the plans.
135. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD
shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into
the sizing calculation.
136. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect
to a GCD. These include but are not limited to:
Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks
Three compartment sinks (pot sinks)
Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for
dishwashers shall connect to a GCD
Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a
dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to
pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks
Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens
Prep sinks
Mop (janitor) sinks
Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be
covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a
GCD.
Drains in trash/recycling enclosures
Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease
generating cooking equipment with drip lines
Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor
drains/sinks
36
137. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines
and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is
prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD:
Dishwashers
Steamers
Pasta cookers
Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens
Hand sinks
Ice machine drip lines
Soda machine drip lines
Drainage lines in bar areas
138. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in
a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)).
139. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any
cooking, food preparation and storage areas.
140. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be
individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5)
141. C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas
PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2)
Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered
area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the
collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking
fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow.
142. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to
prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area.
143. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for
recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs
are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a
GCD.
144. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately
sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in
the covered area.
145. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or
converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the
37
facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the
requirement.
146. D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B)
FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to
a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen
equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc.
Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than
a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful.
SECTION 9. Term of Approval.
Site and Design Approval. In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within two years of
the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be
of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 18.30(G).080.
SECTION 10. Term of Approval.
Conditional Use Permit Approval. In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within one year of
the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be
of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 18.77.090(a).
SECTION 11. Standard Conditions
A. Except as expressly specified herein, the site
plan, floor plans, building elevations and any additional
information or representations, submitted by the Applicant
during the Staff review and public hearing process leading to
the approval of this entitlement, whether oral or written, which
indicated the proposed structure or manner of operation, are
deemed conditions of approval.
B. The approved use and/or construction are subject
to, and shall comply with, all applicable City ordinances and
laws and regulations of other governmental agencies.
C. California Government Code Section 66020 provides
that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a
development project must initiate the protest at the time the
development project is approved or conditionally approved or
within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications,
38
reservations or exactions are imposed on the
Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting
these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions
are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO
INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE
PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020,
YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS.
D. This matter is subject to the California Code of
Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which
judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section
1094.6.
E. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant
shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council,
its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)
from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a
third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the Project, including (without limitation)
reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its
sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys
of its own choice.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
39
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared by Heather Young entitled “3159 El
Camino Real”, consisting of 40 pages, dated August 22, 2013, and
received on August 22, 2013.
,.
"
I
" $
....
. ,
3159 El Camino Real
The City of
Palo Alto
Attachment B
ThIS map Is a product of the
Cily of PoloA"o GIS
---• ..,'
Attachment C
Zoning Compliance Table
3159 El Camino Real
13PLN-00040
CS
Proposed Compliance
Minimum setbacks
Front yard (ft.) 0’-10’ to create an
effective 8’-12’
effective sidewalk
width
4 feet (provides 12 wide
effective sidewalk)
conforms
Rear yard (ft.) 10’ for residential 0’
for commercial portion
10’ minimum at
residential
conforms
Street side yard (right,
Portage)
5’ 7’-6” conforms
Street side yard (left,
Acacia)
5” 5’ conforms
Build to Lines
(required % of wall to be
built up to the required
setback line)
50% of frontage built
to setback
33% of side street built
to setback
55% at El Camino Real
39% at Acacia Ave.
0% at Portage Ave.
conforms
Conforms
DEE (exceeds by
2 feet 6 inches)
Permitted setback
encroachments
6 feet for balconies 5 feet 11 inches at
Portage Ave. for
balconies
conforms
Maximum Site Coverage 50% = 34,752 s.f. 27,432 s.f. conforms
Minimum Landscape
Open Space
30% = 20,851 s.f. 27,785 s.f. conforms
Usable Open Space 150 s.f. per unit 9209 s.f. private
9,526 s.f. common
conforms
Residential Density 30 dwelling units per
acre = 48 units
48 units conforms
Maximum Height 50 feet 55 feet DEE (exceeds by
5 feet)
Attachment C
Zoning Compliance Table
3159 El Camino Real
13PLN-00040
Floor Area
Maximum Residential
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Allowable Commercial
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Total Mixed Use Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
0.6:1 = 41,702 s.f.
0.4:1 = 27,801 s.f.
1.0:1 = 69,503 s.f.
42,860 s.f.
31’262 s.f.
74,122 s.f.
FAR concession
(1,158 over)
FAR concession
(3,461 over)
FAR concession
(4,619 over)
Vehicle Parking
Existing commercial
recreation
New commercial
recreation
Restaurant (public
service area)
Restaurant
(back of house)
Retail
Office
Residential
Studio units
1 per each 4 person
capacity( 6,616 s.f.) =
33 spaces
1 per each 4 person
capacity (2,447) = 11
spaces
1 space for each 60
gross s.f. 2,483/60 = 41
spaces
1 space for each 200
gross s.f. 2,598/200 =
13 spaces
1 space for each 200
gross s.f. 1,000/200 = 5
spaces
1 space for each 250
gross s.f. 16,118/250 =
64 spaces
1.25 spaces per unit
33 units x 1.25 =41.25
spaces
33 spaces provided
11 spaces provided
41 spaces provided
13 spaces provided
5 spaces provided
64 spaces provided
33 spaces
(8.25 fewer spaces due
to state code reductions
in parking requirements)
Attachment C
Zoning Compliance Table
3159 El Camino Real
13PLN-00040
One bedroom units
Two bedroom units
Guest Spaces
Total Spaces Required
(per PAMC)
1.5 spaces per unit
14 units x 1.5 = 21
spaces
2 spaces per unit
1 unit x 2 = s spaces
33% of units 16 spaces
247 spaces
With state code
reductions for
residential parking, the
total parking
requirement is = 216
spaces
14 spaces
(7 spaces fewer due to
state code parking
reductions)
2 spaces
0 spaces
216 spaces provided
216 spaces provided
31 spaces less
than PAMC
conforms
Bicycle Parking
Commercial Recreation
Restaurant
(Public Service Area)
Restaurant
(back of house areas)
Retail
1 space /16 occupants
20% LT 80%ST
44/4=11
2 LT + 9 ST spaces
1 space/600 dross s.f.
40%LT, 60%ST
2,483/600 =4
2 LT + 2ST
1 space/2000 gross s.f.
40%LT, 60%ST
2,017/2000 = 1 ST
1 space/2000 gross s.f.
20%LT, 80%ST
1,000/2,000 = 1 ST
11 spaces
4 spaces
1 space
1 space
Attachment C
Zoning Compliance Table
3159 El Camino Real
13PLN-00040
Office
Residential
Total Bike Spaces
1 space/2,500 gross s.f.
80%LT, 20%ST
16,1189/2500 =6
5LT + 1ST
1 space/unit LT = 48LT
57 Long term (LT) and
14 short term (ST)
6 spaces
48 spaces
61 LT and 30 ST
conforms
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT D
APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
3159 El Camino Real
13PLN-00140
______________________________________________________________________________
Land Use and Community Design Element
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation
for the site is Service Commercial
Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city,
providing residents and visitors with attractive
neighborhoods, work places, shopping district,
public facilities and open spaces.
The proposed mixed use building is of an
attractive design providing a diverse mix of uses
within a single project providing retail , office
and residential uses. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of
the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming
and unacceptable due their size and scale.
The proposed mixed use building follows the
city’s guidelines providing an urban edge along
El Camino Real. Portions of the building’s first
and second floor are at the setback while the
third and fourth floors are set further back such
that the height of the building does not
overwhelm the street.
Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the
context of regional needs, overall City welfare
and objectives, as well as the desires of
surrounding neighborhoods.
The redevelopment of the site with the proposed
mixed use project is an appropriate land use
change for the site. It places a mixture of uses
along a transit corridor, including small rental
units, where increased densities are encouraged.
Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create
coherent development patterns and enhance city
streets and public spaces.
The proposed architectural design of the new
mixed use building appears to be of a high
quality and would enhance the existing El
Camino Real streetscape. The proposal
eliminates all existing curb cuts along El Camino
Real, improving pedestrian safety and provides a
raised plaza at the corner of El Camino and
Portage Avenue. A covered pedestrian arcade is
also proposed at the retail space fronting El
Camino Real.
Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that
offer a variety of retail and commercial services
and provide focal points and community
gathering places for the City’s residential
neighborhoods and Employment Districts.
The attractive design of the new mixed use
building would be inviting and would provide a
multitude of uses to benefit the community. The
ground floor spaces include a possible restaurant,
retail spaces, a fitness facility, office space and at
grade parking. The facility is designed with a
large central portico that invites pedestrians into
the space and facilitates increased mobility
through the project.
Policy L-31: Develop the Cal-Ventura area as a
well-designed mixed use district with diverse
land uses, two-to three-story buildings, and a
network of pedestrian oriented streets providing
links to California Avenue.
The proposed mixed use project fulfills this
policy that encourages mixed use development in
the Cal-Ventura area.
Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and
streets that enhance the image and character of
the City.
The proposed new wider sidewalk, consistent
along the entire block frontage at El Camino
Real, with an elevated plaza area, would improve
the character of the City
Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative
design and site planning that is compatible with
the surrounding development and public spaces.
The proposed mixed use project is a quality,
creatively designed project. The modern design
is of a character that would be consistent with the
surrounding eclectic architecture.
Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize
streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense
of community and personal safety. Provide an
ordered variety of entries, porches, windows,
bays, and balconies along public ways where it is
consistent with neighborhood character; avoid
solid walls at street level; and include human-
scale details and massing.
The mixed use project would revitalize the area
that is currently underutilized with a vacant
parcel and structures that do not maximize the
sites land use potential. The project would
enhance the street and improve personal safety
with wider sidewalks and elimination of curb
cuts. The building would have many balconies
that overlook the street, ample window
fenestration, bays, courtyards, porches, arcades,
and doorways that would activate the public right
of way.
Policy L-75: Minimize the negative impacts of
parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or
underground wherever possible.
All new parking is located behind and under the
building or located underground such that no
open parking lots are visible form El Camino
Real.
Policy L-77: encourage alternatives to surface
parking lots to minimize the amount of land that
must be devoted to parking, provided that
economic and traffic safety goals can still be
achieved.
Most of the parking associate with the project is
proposed below grade such that it is not visible.
Policy L-78 Encourage development that
creatively integrates parking into the project by
providing for shared use of parking areas.
This project proposes multiple uses that have a
combination of dedicated and shared parking
facilities to maximize the use of available
parking and a large number of parking lifts to
maximize the amount of parking provided while
minimizing the area devoted to parking.
Transportation Element
Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that
encourage and promote walking and bicycling.
The mixed use nature of the project enhances the
ability for people to live and work in the same
location. The wider sidewalks with the
elimination of curb cuts improve pedestrian
access. The provision of at grade and secured
bicycle parking along with shower facilities
would assist in encouraging bicycle ridership.
Policy T-19: Improve and create additional,
attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public
and private facilities, including multi-modal
transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks,
at public facilities, in new private developments,
and other community destinations.
The new project would provide both at grade and
secured bicycle parking.
Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly
design features such as sidewalks, street trees,
on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor
furniture, art, and interesting architectural details.
The proposal for a new mixed use building
would greatly enhance the existing street with
the construction of a new building with ample
pedestrian level fenestration and detail,
preservation of large mature street trees, wider
sidewalks, and an activated plaza area for
pedestrian interest.
Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of
strategies to increase housing density and
diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize
and encourage the development of affordable and
attainable housing.
The proposal increases housing density and
provides studio and one bedroom units that are
small and more affordable than the larger
residential units typically proposed within the
City.
Policy H-3: Continue to support the re-
designation of suitable vacant of underutilized
lands for housing and mixed uses containing
housing.
The proposal redevelops underutilized land for
mixed use, including housing.
Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a
means of increasing the housing supply while
promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality.
The proposed mixed use project increases the
housing supply by providing small rental housing
units that are not typically seen in new
developments while also adding new retail and
commercial uses to the site to promote diversity
and neighborhood vitality.
August 22, 2013
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: 3159 EI Camino Real
Site and Design Review
ARB Resubmittal
Russ,
Attachment E
On July 25'h the proposed Mixed Use development at 3159 ECR was presented to the Architectural
Review Board. Although the project was well received in many respects, the ARB requested that the
team investigate the following 9 items and come back for further review and discussion. The design has
been reviewed and in many cases developed or modified to reflect the issues brought up during the
hearing. The ARB drawing set has been updated and several new side-by-side comparison drawings
have been prepared to illustrate the development of several topics. Please note that many of the new
images don't reflect the full rendering quality of the 1 Aug images 'and presentation; the intent is to
show development rather than color correctness which is best demonstrated by the material samples.
Comments on each item are provided below.
Item 1: landscape Review
Concern was expressed that the landscape design should be more integrated with the architectural
design of the building. The triangles in particular were noted as not a good fit for the project. The
landscape and courtyard have been redesigned to better coordinate with the architectural deSign; the
triangle design approach has been replaced with an orthogonal paving and planter approach that works
in harmony with the projects architectural design. Specific highlights include improved pedestrian
connectivity between the ECR sidewalk and dining areas, rectangular planting beds and seat benches in
the ECR Portal and courtyard, rectangular paving and accent pavers that continue into the central and
Portage stair lobbies, and a rectangular fountain connecting the courtyard and the lower level Equinox
entry. Please refer to sheets l-2.1 and l-2.2 for additional details.
Item 2: Traffic and Site Access
The topics of parking access and queuing at the entrances and exits along Portage Ave were brought up
during the August 1" hearing. An Intersection Queuing Analysis was prepared as part of the Traffic'
Impact Analysis report prepared for this project and referenced in the Mitigated Negative'Deciaration.
The analysis determined that the net impact ofthe project had a "less than Significant Impact" on the
existing conditions. Please refer to pages 16-20, and table 10 of the Kimley-Horn Traffic Impact Analysis
report (attached) for specific details; the addition of the project to the site was found to add "nominal
additional queuing". Transcripts of the PTC discussion on parking and site access are included as .
Attachment G of the ARB Staff Report. Rafael Rius from CoPA Public Works Transportation and Traffic
Engineer James Daisa from Kimley-Horn and Associates were on hand to answer questions. The
fergus Garber Young Architects
81 Encino Avenue polo Alto CA 94301
phone 650'/473-0400 fox 650/473-0410
! (
August 22, 2013
safety plan, The goals are to increase physical and visual privacy while maintaining light and views,
Please refer to supplemental sketch ARB-2 for a comparison of the August 1st arid August 29'h designs.
item 5: Residential Balconies to have Restricted Storage
The topic of storage on the exterior residential balconies was brought up during the August 1st hearing
as this can visually impact neighbors and community members visiting the project.· The units have been
designed to give residents internal storage options for large items such as bicycles, oversize sporting
equipment, and other large items that are sometimes found on exterior balconies, 38 of the 48 units
include dedicated bicycle storage and secure on-floor storage areas area provided for each of the 48
units. These on-floor "deep" storage areas typically vary in size from 13-19 sf but some are as large as
24-35 sf, The following language will be incorporated into the residential unit lease: Appropriate tenant
provided patio and terrace furnishings are allowed on the residential balconies and terraces. This .
includes exterior quality tables, choirs, and side tables; umbrellas are permitted on the EI CamIno Real
facing terraces, The following items are prohibIted from being stored, hung, displayed, or used for any
period of time on the resIdential balconies and terraces: Bicycles or sporting equipment; Grills, fryers,
hibachis or cookers of any type or style; Hanging or drying of clothes, sheets or other materials; Storage
of items other than exterior quality tables, chairs and side tables,
Item 6: Review Portage Service Wall Elevation
FGY was asked to look more closely at the Portage service wall elevation -the area between the glazed
retail corner and the residential units along Portage Ave. In working with GreenWaste and the City of
Palo Alto, the Trash/Recycling room that serves the ground floor restaurant and commercial office space
has been broken into 2 spaces with 2 separate roll-up doors. The Recycling room still opens towards
Portage Ave with a 5'-4" wide roll-up door but the Trash enclosure has been rotated 90 degrees with its
8'-8" roll-up door opening onto the parking plaza, Not only is the width ofthe Trash door moved off
Portage but the raised planter width has been increased from less than 8' to over 21', increasing the
landscape frontage on Portage Ave. Additionally the 2nd floor louvers have been reduced in size and the
3'd floor windows re-proportioned to better relate to the residential rainscreen wall proportions. Please
refer to supplemental sketch ARB-3 for a comparison of the August 1st and August 29'h designs.
Item 7: Material Notes on Elevations
The team was asked to provide notes indicating the proposed materials for the exterior elevations,
Material selection notes have been coordinated and updated; please refer to sheets A3,1, A3.2 and A3,3
in the main set,
Item 8: Acacia Corner
The team was asked to review the proposed design for the Acacia Avenue elevation and investigate
opportunities for increasing pedestrian activity and connectivity to the courtyard, A number of
variations were explored resulting in four primary improvements:
• The exterior wall of the Acacla/ECR corner retail/commercial recreation space has been set back
to align with that of the restaurant along the Dining Arcade creating a new arcade, the Acacia
Arcade, Not only does this visually open the Acacia/ECR corner and increase the pedestrian
activity and usability of the ECR frontage, but it better connects. with the overall elevation deSign
along the ECR frontage.
• As the double-height retail/commercial recreation space moves away from ECR, the board form
concrete and glass wall extends and a new glazed opening has been added to balance the Acacia
Arcade portal. A triple stack of projecting sunscreens to match those at the third floor above
the restaurant have been added to the Acacia windows. The new sunscreens can be seen in
Page 3 of 5
August 22, 2013
sidelights, and windows. The revisions have been incorporated into the project design. Please referto
supplemental sketch ARB-10 for a comparison of the August 1" and August 29th designs.
Item 13: EI Camino Real-Color Palette & Central Stair Tower
In general the material and color palette presented on Aug 1 was well received. The team reviewed the
overall color palette as part ofthe revision from zinc to composite cement panel cladding at the stair
towers and explored two additional improvements. The location of the two terra cotta colors on EI
Camino Real (grey and red/brown) have been switched such that the stronger red/brown is on the 4th
floor, set back from the main fa~ade, and the more neutral grey is on the 3,d floor. The gives the ECR
elevation less of a horizontal stripe/layered feel. Also, rich and beautiful as the dark brown wood
cladding of the courtyard stair tower is, It tends to go very dark in shadow. The team considered other
options and has revised the proposal to a lighter brown with a more open grain pattern, Not only is the
palette lightened but the grain adds visual texture. The second floor steel beam of the central stair
tower has also been m'oved inside the glass to revise the proportions of the lowest 2 levels of the stair
tower. The revisions have been incorporated into the project design. Please refer to supplemental
sketches ARB-ll and ARB-12 for a comparison of the August 1" and August 29th designs.
Thank you for your assistance with this application. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
We look forward to reviewing these items with the Board on August 29th•
Sincerely,
Fergus Garber Young Architects
Heather Young
cc: John Tarlton, Tarlton Properties Inc.
Page 5 of 5 i
Tarlton Properties
Silva Parking Study
6/13/2013
Site Vehicle Parking
Location Tenant Gross Office Storage Parking VAN ADA Stan TOTAL VAN ADA Stan Mach TOTAL VAN ADA Stan VAN ADA Stan Mach VAN ADA Stan
411A Acacia Avenue General Motors1 4,966 4,966 1 19 20 1 19 20 1 19
411B Acacia Avenue General Motors1 1,021 1,021 1 1 1 1 1
429A Acacia Avenue General Motors1 4,952 4,952 1 19 20 1 19 20 1 19
429B Acacia Avenue General Motors1 1,035 1,035 1 1 1 1 1
435 & 473 Acacia Avenue Equinox2 24,650 - -1 2 106 109 1 2 106 109 1 2 106
435 Portage Avenue mSpot 19,367 9,548 9,819 1 1 36 38 1 1 36 38 1 1 36
455 Portage Avenue - A mSpot3 5,681 - -1 22 23 1 22 23 22 1
455 Portage Avenue - B AME Cloud3 6,025 5,312 713 1 21 22 1 21 22 21 1
3159 ECR - existing Equinox - -1 32 33 1 32 33 1 32
3159 ECR - new Commercial Rec 11 11 11 11 11
Restaurant 1 53 54 1 53 54 28 1 25
Retail 5 5 5 5 5
Office 1 1 62 64 1 1 62 64 1 1 62
Residential 1 48 49 1 48 49 1 48
6 8 436 450 6 8 243 193 450 3 4 182 1 2 25 193 2 2 36
TOTALS TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 450
Available Vehicle Parking
Portage Ave Garage - Grade 2 1 81
Portage Ave Garage - Lower 1 3 104
435/555 Portage 2 2 36
3159 ECR - Grade 1 14
3159 ECR - Lower 1 1 11 196
3 4 185 1 2 25 196 2 2 36
15 September 2005 Staff Report: Proposed project to provide 202 spaces 192 224 40
15 March 2007 Garage: Provides 199 spaces TOTAL AVAILABLE PARKING 456
Note: For the purpose of this study all existing parking spots, whether standard or compact, are counted as a Standard parking space.
They should be able to remain as existing until an improvement or redevelopment project necessitates reconfiguration to meet current standards.
1 CoPA Sept 15 2005 Staff Report includes a total of 41 for Wilson Sonsini revised to total of 45 for new tenants TrickPlay and GM in 2007, now all GM; Assumes parking at rate 1/250 sf for office and 1/500 sf for storage
2 CoPA Sept 15 2005 Staff Report; Assumes existing Equinox parking at rate 1/200sf gross usable
3 CoPA Sept 15 2005 Staff Report includes a total of 33 for Klutz revised to total of 42 for new tenants in 2007; Assumes parking at rate 1/250 sf for office and 1/500 sf for storage
4 Three upper level and 5 lower level parking spaces were reconfigured and relocated from the Portage Garage to 3159 ECR as part of the Mixed-Use project; 3159 ECR provides 183 net new spaces
Provided Parking Locations
Portage
total 4
435/455
total
3159 ECR
3159 ECR total
Square Footage Required Parking Provided Parking
Portage
Garage 435/455 Portage
FGY Architects Silva Parking with 3159 ECR project
Attachment G
CITY OF City of Palo Alto (10 # 3919)
PALO
ALTO Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 7/10/2013
Summary Title: 31S9 EI Camino Real
Title: Request by Heather Young on behalf of Portage Avenue Portfolio, LLC,
for Site and Design Review of a five story, 55 foot tall, 75,042 s.f. building,
replacing an existing 900 s.f. commercial building to establish 48 residential
apartment units, and commercial and retail uses on a 1.6 acre site. The
proposal includes retention of 6,661 s.f. of floor area (3127 EI Camino Real)
and the existing parking structure at 440 Portage Avenue. Parking spaces
provided for 223 vehicles would include mechanical parking lifts.
Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration have been prepared. Zone District: Service Commercial (CS).
From: Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Lead Department: Planning & Transportation Commission
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend
City Council approval of the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving:
(1) A Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA);
(2) The Site and Design Review application for a new 67,506 s.f. mixed-use building (added to
an existing 6,616 s.f. building) on a 1.6 acre site (resulting in a total 74,122 s.f. of floor area on a
69,503 s.f. site, and FAR of 1.06:1) to provide 48 apartment units, including five below market
rate units, and office and retail uses, with structured parking facilities (at surface and
underground) providing 216 parking spaces (including 11 puzzle lifts for 196 cars),
(3) Density Bonus concession permitting Increased FAR for both residential and commercial
components of the project in the total amount of 4, 619 square feet; and
(4) A Conditional Use Permit (to allow 16,118 sq. ft. of office space on one parcel where the
limit is 5,000 s.f.).
City of Palo Alto Page 1 (
Background
Site Location
The project site, located south of Page Mill Road on State Route 82 (EI Camino Real), is bounded
by Portage Avenue to the southeast and Acacia Avenue to the northwest, and the developed
site at 435 Acacia Avenue (Equinox Gym building). The site includes the 6,616 s.f. Equinox Gym
annex at 3127 EI Camino Real, the 900 s.f. "We Fix Macs" building at 3159 EI Camino Real, the
parking structure at 440 Portage and two surface parking lots. The lot located at the northwest
corner of the site has 11 parking spaces, and the parking lot at the southwest corner of the site
(near the EI Camino Real and Portage Avenue intersection) has 44 parking spaces (on two
separate parcels). The site has five curb cuts onto public rights of way: two curb cuts on Portage
Avenue, one.curb cut on the EI Camino Real, and two curb cuts on Acacia Avenue. To the north
of Acacia Street is surface parking lot, across EI Camino Real to the west are restaurants
(McDo.nalds and Fish Market), across Portage Street to the south is a retail use (Footlocker) and
office buildings, and across the alley to the east is a retail use (Fry's Electronics).
The 1.6 acre project site (69,503 square feet) consists of four parcels to be merged under a
separate application (preliminary parcel map process). The parcel Is. zoned CS (Service
Commercial) and is regulated by requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter
18.16. Mixed-use is a permitted land use in the CS zone district. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for this site is also Service Commercial, which allows for facilities providing citYWide
and regional services and relies on customers arriving by car. Residential and mixed use
projects may be appropriate in this land use category.
Project Description
The proposed project Is 67,506 s.f. mixed use building which, when combined with the existing
6,616 s.f. Equinox gym annex located on the site, would result floor area to a total of 74,122
s.f. The maximum height would be 55 feet above grade to allow for loft space in the fourth
floor residential units, as well as to screen mecha(lical equipment. At the ground floor level,
retail/restaurant/commercial recreation space is proposed, and the building setback on EI
Camino Real would allow an effective 12 foot sidewalk width. A total of 48 residential
apartment units would be provided on four of the floors (second, third, fourth, and partial fifth
floors). The proposed loft spaces, accessible internally from fourth floor residential units would
have floors below the ceiling level of the fourth floor units. Office space would be provided on
portions of the first, second, and third floors. Third and fourth floors are proposed above a
portion of the existing Equinox building at 3127 EI Camino Real. The first and second floors
would be separated across the site by the existing Equinox building walls and by a courtyard
proposed between the gym and the new restaurant/retail space. The third and fourth floors
across the site are mostly physically separated (using expansion joints) except for limited
hallway access, but would be visually connected.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The project includes surface and one level of underground parking facilities (13 feet below
grade) for 216 parking spaces, including 11 puzzle parking lifts. The building would be
constructed to displace one surface parking lot and reduce the size and cover another sUrface
parking lot on the site.
The subterranean garage would connect to the existing below grade garage on Portage Avenue
(that serves tenants of 411-43.5 Acacia Avenue) at the south east corner of the site. The main,
finished garage floor level would be located below the existing site grades, and three level car
stackers would be installed in the garage. The lifts would extend approximately six to seven feet
below the main garage floor. Vehicular access to the site would be provided exclusively on
Portage Avenue via two curb cuts; all other existing curb cuts (on EI Camino Real and Acacia
Avenue) would be removed. The parking spaces would be provided in both the existing two-
level garages on Portage Avenue, and in the new underground garage that would be accessed
from a below grade connection to the existing Portage Avenue garage. Fifteen (15) surface
level visitor parking spaces are proposed beneath the residential wing of the proposed building.
Site improvements such as landscaping, walkways and an outdoor dining terrace are also
included in the proposed project. Plans also reflect a new concrete pad projecting at the level of
the EI Camino Real sidewalk into EI Camino Real right of way to provide a corral for 18 bike
parking spaces.
Other project aspects include a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Design Enhancement Exceptions
(DEEs), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Concession, and parking reduction incentives. A CUP is
requested to permit the proposed office floor area to exceed the 5,000 square feet per parcel
limit (by 11,118 s.f.). Two DEEs are requested and would be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board. One DEE is a request for the height of the residential loft spaceS to exceed the
50 foot height limit by five additional feet. The second DEE requests a relaxation from the
build-to requirement along the Portage Avenue frontage, resulting in a greater setback of seven
feet six Inches rather than a five foot setback. The proposal also includes five below market
rate residential apartment units (10% of the total units), allowing a concession for greater floor
area than the maximum allowable area, as well as fewer parking spaces than would otherwise
be required.
Summary of Land Use Action
Commission Purview
The Commission reviews and recommends the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Site and Design
Review, density bonus concession and Use Permit applications. The recommendations will be
forwarded to Council following hearing and recommendation by the ARB on the Site and Design
Review and Design Enhancement Exception requests. The ARB hearing will be another public
City of Palo Alto Page 3
comment opportunity on the environmental document and project as a whole, but the ARB
focus is on the ARB findings to ensure good site design, landscaping and building design, and
the sustainability of the project. The Commission's focus is on the environmental document ,
land use and Site and Design Review findings. The Council will receive both recommendations
and minutes of the public hearings in the staff report and presentation to Council.
Summary of Key Issues
Concessions for FAR
Five of the proposed 48 rental apartment units will be provided as below market rate units.
This is 10% of the total number of units. The floor area allowance in the CS zone district is 1:1
or 69,503 square feet for this site. The maximum' nonresidential floor area is 0.4:1 of the site or
27,801 sq.ft., where the proposed nonresidential floor area is 31,262 sq.ft. (3,460 sq.ft. over the
0.4:1 nonresidential FAR). Of the nonresidential floor area, .15:1 FAR or 10,425 sqJt. of floor
area must be ground floor commercial area; the project includes 17,073 sJ. of ground floor
commercial area, meeting the, minimum standard. The maximum residential floor area is 0.6:1
or 41,701 sq.ft. where 42,860 sq.ft. is proposed (1,158 sq.ft. over the 0.6:1 residential FAR).
To assist in providing the proposed BMR units, the applicant has proposed to exceed the
allowable 1:1 FAR (69,503 sq.ft. of floor area) by 4,619 square feet for a total floor area of
74,122 square feet. State density bonus law allows for concessions when at least 10% of the
housing units proposed are affordable units. The requested concession is an FAR of .06:1 over
the maximum allowable 1:1 FAR. The housing component of this project is a good example of
the type of housing develoP91ent envisioned by the new Housing Element. The sites were
located on the City's inventory. The project combines smaller sized parcels to maximize
density. The small units are designed to appeal to an urban commuter and they are located
close to transit. The requested concession is also consistent with the Density Bonus recently
recommended by the Commission.
Parking Reductions
The total number of parking spaces that would generally be required for the project based on
the city's zoning requirements is 247 parking spaces. State density bonus law (Government
code Section 65915, also formerly known as SB, 1818) provides the ability to use a lower
number of parking spaces when a project provides a minimum of 10% BMR units in a project.
The differences between the City's residential parking requirements and the residential parking
requirements under the State law are provided in the table below.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Parking Table
Residential City Standard Number State Incentives Number
unit type (# of units X spaces of Spaces (# of units x spaces of spaces
per unit required) per PAMC per unit required) per.5tate
.
Studio 33 x 1.25 41.25 33 x 1 33
1 bedroom 14 x 1.5 21 14x1 14
2 bedroom . 1x2 2 1x2 2
Guest Parking 33% 16 0% 0
Total Parking 80 49
Spaces
The State law allows for a 31 space reduction in the number of parking spaces required in the
project. While the project would provide 31 spaces fewer than the City's parking code requires,
with the state incentives for parking reductions, the project will be otherwise zoning compliant
for required parking. A breakdown of the parking regulations is provided in the zoning
compliance table attachment C.
DEE for Height
The height limit for the CS zone is 50 feet. The applicant has proposed a DEE to exceed the 50
foot height limit by 5 feet, for a total height of 55 feet. This is requested so the height of the
mechanical roof screens and the loft roofs could be integrated into one single cohesive roof
element, rather than multiple roof screens randomly scattered across the top of the building.
The DEE findings are provided in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
DEE for Build to Line
The CS zone district requires that 33% of the building be built up to the setback on the side
streets (Acacia and Portage Avenues), and that 50% of the main building frontage (EI Camino
Real) be at the setback line of zero to ten feet to create a 12 foot effective sidewalk with (curb
to building face). On the 150 foot long Acacia Avenue frontage, 39% or 59' ofthe building wall -
is proposed to .be placed at the five foot setback, therefore the requirement is met. On the 458
foot long Portage Avenue frontage, the length of the-building wall is approximately 149 feet
long. To meet the 33% build to setback requirement, at least 49 linear feet of the building Wall
would need to be built up to the five foot required setback. To accommodate the extension of
the residential balconies and the accessible ramp up to the elevated plaza, the building Would
be built with a minimum seven foot'slx inch setback, rather than up to the required five foot
setback. This would be two and one half feet further back from the street than is required by
City of Palo Alto Page 5
the code for 33% of the wall length. This would result in a greater setback than the bUild to
requirement allows, necessitating a DEE request. While the building wall is further from the
setback than n!quirep, the residential balconies at the second, third, and ·fourth floors would
extend out forward 11 inches beyond the property line.
Site and Design Review
The Site and Design Review combining district is intended to provide a process for review and
approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including
established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive
noise, increased traffic, or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will
be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental
and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The
property is not located within an ecologically sensitive area or within a Site and Design
combining district. The code, however, does require that mixed use projects providing more
than four residential dwelling units are subject to Site and Design Review. Because the
application includes 48 residential units, it is therefore subject to Site and Design Review which
requires review by the Commission, the ARB and the City Council. The Commission and ARB
will forward their recommendation to City Council for final approval of the proposed mixed use
project. Since the CUP and the DEE's are part of the project proposal the final Council action
will include these project elements as well. The Site and Design review findings are provided
within the RLUA (Attachment A).
Conditional Use Permit
The CS zoning limits office uses to no more than 5,000 square feet per parcel. The zoning also
contains a provision that allows the. parcel to exceed the 5,000 s.f. office limit with a
Conditional Use Permit. The limit is ultimately established by the Director. Since the four
parcels will be combined into one parcel a Conditional Use permit to exceed the 5,000 s.f. limit
of office space per parcel is included as part of the application. The total amount of office
space proposed within the project is 16,118 square feet. This is only 21.7% of the total floor
area within the project. The amount of office square footage is similar to the amount of retail
floor area, providing a balance between the two uses while being considerably less than the
proposed residential floor area proposed within the project. The CUP findings are provided
within the RLUA (Attachment A).
Bike Parking
The plans provided in this packet Includes a bulb out area at the EI Camino Real frontage to
provide additional bike parking spaces. EI Camino Real is a State Highway and the California
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) has ultimate authority over modifications to the EI
Camino Real public right-of-way. Transportation staff does not believe that Cal Trans will be
supportive of the bulb out element into the roadway and has directed the applicant to find
alternative locations for the bike parking. The applicant has stated that the plans will be reVised
to eliminate the bulb out element and also provide the required bike parking at grade and in
. secured bike cages in the below grade garage.
EI Camino Real Development
Three guidelines are applicable to this site: (1) EI Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR
Guidelines), (2) South EI Camino Real Guidelines, recommended by ARB in 2002 (South ECR
Guidelines), and (3) EI Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan, 2003 Draft (Design Plan).
South EeR Guidelines: The project site is located within the Cal Ventura Area, a corridor area, as
defined by the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines indicate
new buildings should front EI Camino Real with prominent facades and entries should face EI
Camino Realor clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians.
• Guideline 3.1.2 states "the design of the sidewalk setback should create an urban
character"; the buildings would be set back from EI Camino Real to provide a 12 foot
wide effective sidewalk width (curb face to building, required by Zoning Code Section
18.16.060). A raised outdoor dining terrace is proposed, facing EI Camino Real at the
corner of Portage Avenue.
• Guideline 3.1.8 notes "new buildings should relate to and compliment surrounding
buildings and street frontages" and "projects should relate to adjacent buildings with
complimentary building orientations and compatible landscaping." No landscape plans
have been submitted to date, but will be .required for the Architectural Review Board
hearing of the project. The proposed design would.meet Guideline 4.1.6, which states,
"buildings faCing EI Camino Real should be oriented parallel to the ECR right of way to
create a cohesive well-defined street." Two entries would be facing EI Camino Real.
The proposed project would cover an entire EI Camino Real frontage block. Contextual
streetscape views beyond the block were provided to allow for comparison of the
project height and scale with development along the same side of EI Camino Real,
mostly one-story buildings. The ARB would also evaluate the project pursuant to
Guidelines 4.3.6, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5, which are:
• Guideline 4.3.6: "All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level
City of Polo Alto Page 7
of care and integrity" and "Buildings should be attractive and visually engaging from all
sides, unless in a zero lot-line condition."
• Guideline 4.5.4 and 4.5.5: "rooflines and roof shapes should be consistent with the
design and structure of the building itself as well as with roof lines of adjacent buildings"
and "roof forms should reflect the fa~ade articulation and building massing, as oppOsed
to' a single-mass roof over an articulated fa~ade."
feR Guidelines: The 1979 ECR guidelines are somewhat helpful with respect to street trees,
signage, architecture and building colors.
• Trees: ECR guidelines cali for street tree spacing every 25 feet (page 2, top) or 30 feet
(page 2, bottom); whereas the Design Plan calls for london Plane street trees in this
segment of EI Camino Real, planted every 22 to 33 feet on center in 4' x 6' tree .wells,
and prunes to provide 14 feet of clearance below to allow for truck and bus traffic. The
five existing london Plane trees on EI Camino Real are shown as to be retained; three
new street trees are proposed along Acacia, and one street tree is proposed on Portage
to supplement the existing Ash street tree. The Landscape Plan to be prepared for ARB
review would provide further detail as to plantings and proposed tree species.
• Signage: There are a few relevant statements, such as -"Signs on ECR are limited to Y,
to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the sign ordinance"; "Wall signs should appear
as though the building and the sign were designed together. The sign should not appear
as if it were attached as an afterthought"; "A place for a sign should be designed into
the elevation (If a sign is needed)"; and "Three signs, one on each elevation, are usually
not approved." The project plans indicate one location for signage, at the intersection of
EI Camino Real and Portage, a low wall sign. Further detail would be required for the
staff and ARB review of signage placement.
• Architecture: "In neighborhood commercial zones, the design should be pedestrian
oriented; signs and details should not be primarily auto-oriented." Also, "when possible
buildings should be set back from the front property line, with landscaping or a people
oriented plaza in. front." The project provides for planter landscaping, new street trees
where none currently exist, and some pedestrian oriented sign age. An outdoor dining
terrace, facing EI Camino Real, with trelliage, is also proposed to activate the EI Camino
Real elevation.
• Colors: "More than three colors on a structure will make it incompatible with the
City of Paid Alto Page 8
surroundings. Using bright colors, such as reds, yellows, purples and greens as the
predominant color on a structure may make it incompatible with the surroundings. The
ARB usually feels these colors are used to attract attention." Colors and materials board
would be provided for the ARB review.
Policy Implications
Many of the City's policies are reflected in the project's design. The South EI Camino Real
Guidelines, the Context-Based Design Criteria, and Comprehensive Plan policies are
Implemented by this proposal. The project has pieced together smaller parcels to form a large
enough parcel that is able to realize the elements of the various City Guidelines. The building
provides a strong street edge along EI Camino Real while providing a wide 12 foot Sidewalk, at
minimum, and various other pedestrian amenties. The building would have four floors but the
uper floors would be set back to reduce the apparent height and mass of the building on the
street. The" building would have an elevated corner plaza at the intersection of Portage Avenue
and EI Camino Real for outdoor seating, storefront entries that face the street, an arcade
providing pedestrian weather protection, and residential balconies that relate to the street.
The building fa~ade is well articulated with ample fenestration and a multitude of deSign
elements including a corner glass element with sunshades, balconies at the residential floors, a
wide opening to an interior courtyard and stair tower, and multiple transitions in building
materials with numerous colors and textures. The project would replace surface parking lots,
visible from EI Camino Real, with underground parking and surface parking that is at grade
behind and beneath the new building. All curb cuts along EI Camino Real would be removed,
resulting in improved pedestrian safety. Many of the project elements work together to
improve pedestrian access and serve to implement the vision of a more pedestrian-oriented EI
Camino Real. In addition to the physical elements, the proposed uses within the project also
serve to reduce auto usage and encourage pedestrian activity. This is a true mixed use prOject
with a high number of small rental residential units not typically seen in mixed use projects of
the recent past. This is a housing project that is not commonly built in Palo Alto and would
be a welcome addition to the City's rental housing stock. The housing development is
consistent with the City's recently adopted Housing Element and also consistent with the
pending Density Bonus ordinance (scheduled for Council review in August). In adition to the
residential uses, the proposal also includes a reasonable balance of office and retail spaces.
Timeline
Application submittal:
Mitigated Negative Declaration available for Public comment:
Planning and Transportation Commission Review:
Architectural Review Board Review:
City of Palo Alto
January 29, 2013
May 31, 2013
July 10, 2013
TBD
Page 9
City Council Review: TSD
Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Deciaratio.n have been prepared for the project and the
~O day public review and comment period began on May 31, 2013. The environmental analysis
notes there are a few potentially sign"ificant impacts that would require mitigation measures to
reduce. them to a less than significant level. These include mitigations for dust constrol during
excavation, protection for nesting birds, building design for earthquake resistance, basement
shoring, a Health and Safety Plan for construction workers, a Remedial Risk Management Plan,
collection of additional soil samples, installation of a vapor barrier, vapor collection, and
venting system, third party inspection of vapor barrier and venting system, a Groundwater
Mitigation Plan, development of a Groundwater Extraction design, technical documents
uploaded to the appropriate agencies, and the addition of a southbound West Charleston Road
right ~urn overlap signal phase.
Courtesy Copies
Fergus Garber Young Architects
Portage Avenue Portfolio, llC
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Draft Record of land Use Action (PDF)
• Attachment S: Site location map (PDF)
• Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table (PDF)
• Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table (PDF)
• Attachment E: Applicant letter (PDF)
• Attachment F: Initial Studay and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)
• Attachment G: Project Plans (P& TC and libraries only) (PDF)
• Attachment H: letter of Support (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 10 /
1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
July 10, 2013 3
4
EXCERPT 5
6
Public Hearing: 7
8
1. 3159 El Camino Real [13PLN-00040]: Request by Heather Young on behalf of Portage Avenue Portfolio, 9
LLC, for Site and Design Review and request for concessions under Density Bonus law of a five story, 55 foot 10
tall, 75,042 s.f. building, replacing an existing 900 s.f. commercial building to establish 48 residential 11
apartment units, and commercial and retail uses on a 1.6 acre site. The proposal includes retention of 6,661 12
s.f. of floor area (3127 El Camino Real) and the existing parking structure at 440 Portage Avenue. Parking 13
spaces provided for 223 vehicles would include mechanical parking lifts. Environmental Assessment: An Initial 14
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. Zone District: Service Commercial 15
(CS). *Quasi-Judicial (Continued from June 26, 2013) 16
17
Chair Martinez: And that’s consideration of an application for Site and Design Review and environmental 18
review and recommendation on the record of land use action on 3159 El Camino. Staff? 19
20
Aaron Aknin, Interim Director – Planning: Thank you and good evening Honorable Chair and Planning 21
Commission. Aaron Aknin, Interim Planning Director. Staff is here to give, Russ Reich our Senior Planner 22
will be giving a short presentation, but we also have Transportation staff here to answer any questions 23
you may have as well as our traffic transportation consultant who prepared the transportation portion of 24
the environmental review. I’ll turn it over to Russ at this time. 25
26
Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Thank you. Good evening Chair Martinez and Commissioners. The proposed 27
project is a 67,506 square foot mixed-use building which combined with the existing 6,616 square foot 28
Equinox Gym Annex located on the same site would result in a floor area of 74,122 square feet. The 29
proposed height of the building would be 55 feet above grade. At the ground level retail, restaurant, and 30
commercial recreation spaces are proposed. The building setback on El Camino would allow for an 31
effective 12 foot sidewalk. A total of 48 residential apartment units would be provided on the second, 32
third, and fourth floors of the building. 33
34
The project includes surface and one level of below grade parking facilities for 216 parking spaces 35
including 11 puzzle parking lifts. The subterranean garage would connect to the existing below grade 36
garage on Portage Avenue at the southeast corner of the site. Three level car stackers or puzzle lifts 37
would be installed in the garage. The applicant will provide a short video that demonstrates how these 38
work. Vehicular access to the site would be provided exclusively on Portage Avenue via two curb cuts. 39
All other existing curb cuts on El Camino and Acacia would be removed. The parking spaces would be 40
provided in both the existing two level garage on Portage Avenue and in the new underground garage 41
that would be accessed from a below grade connection to the existing Portage Garage. Fifteen surface 42
level visitor parking spaces are proposed beneath the residential wing of the building. Site improvements 43
such as landscaping, walkways, and other outdoor, and an outdoor dining terrace are also included in the 44
proposed project. 45
46
I’d like to touch on some of the key issues that are detailed within the staff report. Because the project 47
will provide ten percent or 5 of the 48 residential units as Below Market Rate (BMR) units also known as 48
BMR’s the applicant is entitled to request one concession to the City’s zoning requirements. The 49
concession the applicant has requested is for floor area. They’ve requested a total of 4,619 square feet. 50
This amount is consistent with the draft Density Bonus Ordinance that is likely to move forward to the 51
City Council next month. When providing BMR units projects are entitled by right to use the State’s 52
calculation for required parking for the residential units. This is not a concession. The State’s formula 53
results in 31 fewer spaces than the City’s formula. A breakdown of the City’s parking ratio versus the 54
State’s is provided in the parking table at the top of Page 5 of the staff report. 55
56
2
The applicant has requested two Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE). One is for five feet in additional 1
height to allow for the height of the proposed loft spaces to be at the same height as the mechanical roof 2
screens to integrate them into one single rooftop element. The second Design Enhancement Exception 3
would allow the building to be setback two and a half feet further from the required setback on Portage 4
Avenue resulting in a seven and a half foot setback rather than a five foot setback. 5
6
Upon further analysis of the traffic study the applicant has modified the traffic report. At places you have 7
revised language of the proposed traffic mitigation and the traffic consultant’s letter explaining the 8
change. Also at places are questions from Commissioner Keller and staff responses along with a table 9
indicating the parking distribution of the various properties associated with the new project and the 10
existing parking structure at 440 Portage Avenue. 11
12
Staff has recommended that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend approval of 13
the proposed project. Staff and the applicant are here to answer any questions that you may have. 14
Thank you. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Before we go forward the Vice-Chair has reminded me that this is quasi-17
judicial item and therefore Members of the Commission are asked to disclose any ex-parte 18
communications with the public or the applicant. Anyone? I see none. Ok. Is there additional members 19
of the staff that care to speak? City Attorney? 20
21
Mr. Aknin: No. If there’s any questions we’re available. 22
23
Chair Martinez: And the applicant is not going to? 24
25
Mr. Aknin: The applicant is here. 26
27
Mr. Reich: The applicant is here and prepared to make a presentation. 28
29
Chair Martinez; Ok. So if you’re ready to go forward with that. Before you do that we are going to open 30
the public hearing and if there are members of the public that care to speak to this, I don’t think that we 31
have any speaker cards yet. One comment. Ok. We invite more than one. And you’ll have 10 minutes. 32
Is that right? Fifteen minutes. Thank you. 33
34
Heather Young, Fergus Garber Young Architects: Good evening Commissioners, my name is Heather 35
Young and I’m with Fergus Garber Young Architects. We’re representing the project team. The project 36
we are bringing before you tonight is a mixed-use project. And it’s unusual in Palo Alto because it is a, 37
what I call a true mixed-use project. It doesn’t have a little bit of retail, a lot of commercial office, and a 38
little bit of residential. It’s very balanced in its distribution of nonresidential commercial office and 39
residential. As you can see from the perspective it is a multi-story structure. 40
41
The zoning for the project as you know is the CS, Commercial Service Zone, which has a 1.0 Floor Area 42
Ratio (FAR). That FAR is divided 0.6 for residential and 0.4 for nonresidential. We believe that the 43
project is supporting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the El Camino Real design guidelines and 44
we’d like to walk you through some of the ways that we believe it does that. Just to orient you, here’s El 45
Camino, Oregon, and Alma. We’re at 3159. You can see the property outlined here in the red dashed 46
line. There currently is Equinox’s extension on El Camino in this area, a surface parking lot with a small 47
structure to support a used car dealership that has not been in operation for several years, there’s some 48
additional surface parking to support Equinox, and surface parking and a small structure for We Fix Macs, 49
a retail establishment. The remainder of the site is an existing parking garage with surface parking and 50
below grade parking. The below grade parking is accessed off of Portage and goes under an elevated 51
pool structure that supports the Equinox gym. 52
53
Some other things in the neighborhood you’ll be familiar with: Fry’s store is further down Portage, there’s 54
a McDonald’s and the Fish Market, a local restaurant, an empty surface parking lot, Mike’s Bikes, Foot 55
Locker in a surface parking lot situation, and then as you go down Portage some older industrial style 56
3
buildings that have some been recently converted. And these are just some images of those structures: 1
the Fish Market, nearby is Palo Alto Square, We Fix Macs, Showcase Luxury Cars, Equinox in these three 2
images. And this building at 435 Portage are actually buildings that we’ve recently provided design 3
services for and those are the only buildings that have been modified in the recent past. 4
5
The existing site again you’ve got the expansion for Equinox that fronts El Camino Real, the parking lots, 6
We Fix Macs, and the other surface parking lots. This is the main component of Equinox’s gym and these 7
are General Motors (GM) offices. From the traffic you can see a number of curb cuts going in and out of 8
the site from Portage, El Camino, and Acacia. This again is the entrance to the below grade lot and the 9
surface lot. There are some primary entries and exits along this sidewalk. Only exits onto Acacia and 10
exits here. We Fix Macs is a tiny little entrance, nothing of significance. All of the structures have 11
rooftop mechanical equipment and obviously El Camino is a source of noise generation. 12
13
The proposed project would complete the block from Acacia to Portage. Part of the goals of the 14
Comprehensive Plan it would maintain the existing structure at Equinox and add a new structure at the 15
corner of El Camino and Acacia and another structure at Portage. There would be a small surface 16
parking lot here to complement the existing parking and a pedestrian portal connecting El Camino and 17
the courtyard. The curb cuts on Acacia and El Camino would be removed. One of the curb cuts along 18
Portage would be removed. These orange areas here indicate locations for bicycle parking and a 19
proposed bike share location for the project that’s being rolled out now in San Francisco and along the 20
Peninsula. We would propose to have primary entrances into the building off of El Camino and also off of 21
the pedestrian portal and another primary entrance to the restaurant space off of the surface parking in 22
this area. There would also be a grade connection between this internal courtyard and the existing 23
parking. 24
25
This is just going to walk very quickly how the different uses of the site are composed. So this view from 26
Portage and El Camino you can see the existing Equinox structure and We Fix Macs. Excuse me, once 27
that’s removed the first addition would be a double height retail space, a double height restaurant space, 28
another double height space that’s either retail or commercial recreation, a little bit of commercial office 29
on the ground here, and some support spaces. The second floor some support spaces and residential 30
units, a small area of office. On the third floor along El Camino, commercial office space, more 31
residential on the two side streets, and then the fourth floor all residential, and then the roof screens and 32
lofts and the vertical circulation areas. 33
34
What you can see highlighted in this slide is the development of the urban plaza on the corner of Portage 35
and El Camino and a strengthening of the pedestrian experience along El Camino between Acacia and 36
Portage. As you probably know, we’re required to build up to 12 feet from the curb to create a maximum 37
12 foot sidewalk effective width for at least fifty percent of the frontage on El Camino. We have no 38
choice. However, we’re very sympathetic to some of the conversations that have been between City 39
Council and the community recently about the desire to have a greater sidewalk width. And so we’ve 40
gone intentionally to create this urban plaza in this area and also are developing this frontage as a 41
pedestrian arcade, a dining arcade to support the restaurant behind it and developing the pedestrian 42
portal to allow again for the pedestrian connection between El Camino and the interior courtyard. And 43
here you can see it built out with additional balconies, terraces, other opportunities for pedestrian and 44
occupant engagement with the street. 45
46
If we look at it from the Acacia corner again this is the existing structure to be removed and the double 47
height commercial recreation or retail space, office, the double height restaurant, the double height retail, 48
and some support with that small parking area. The second floor commercial office and residential. The 49
third floor across El Camino with commercial office, residential on the two flanking corners and then 50
again residential along the fourth floor. We’ve worked very hard to maintain this existing structure so 51
that it’s an infill project that goes adjacent to, above, and under that existing structure. We’ve also 52
worked aggressively to provide for that safety and welfare of the occupants of that structure during 53
construction such that the design for the seismic improvements that we’re executed last year on this 54
building allow for the shoring to occur, it’s already in place, the shoring for the building is already in place 55
and will have safe exits for any of the occupants in the building. There’s also a small pet friendly park in 56
4
this area I should just mention. And here you can see again that built out with additional terraces, 1
balconies, the fourth floor has been setback considerably from the street to have a lower mass developed 2
along El Camino so that we’re able to reinforce the pedestrian experience, but then set back for a more 3
private residential experience. 4
5
You can see we’ve highlighted some of the programs and policies from the Comprehensive Plan that we 6
believe the project is supporting and one of them is to consider a variety of strategies to address housing 7
density. And what we’ve done to address housing density in addition to maxing out this with 48 8
residential units, which is the most that we’re allowed. The units are studios, one bedrooms, and I 9
believe there’s 1 two bedroom unit. So it’s a dense housing opportunity. They are for rental only; they 10
are not condominiums at all. And we realized early on in the project that there would be a roof screen 11
that would be required for the mechanical equipment and that there was potentially an opportunity to 12
maximize the usable square footage within the same mass that would occur because of the roof screen. 13
And that’s the little lofts that you’ve seen referenced in the discussion and also in your package, the little 14
sectional drawings. So it’s just a small little bonus room for some of those residential units to make them 15
more usable. 16
17
And parking I’m sure is a very, a very sensitive topic. As you saw in the report there have been 18
calculations for all of the parking requirements for the different uses: the retail, the commercial 19
recreation, the restaurant, the office, and the residential. And all of those are being met with the parking 20
that’s being provided. We have 15 additional sites, parking spots here at grade and then when you go 21
below grade again through the ramp to go down to the lower level these gray toned areas are the puzzle 22
lifts that Russ referred to a moment ago. They are car stacking machines and those would be dedicated 23
reserved spaces for the residents and the commercial office users, not just in this building, but in the 24
other structures that are served by the Portage garage, this existing garage. So by reassigning for 25
instance GM office people a reserved spot in the puzzle lifts, the spot that their car may have taken all 26
day now becomes available for intermittent users who are visitors to the site either to the retail or to the 27
restaurant or to Equinox. You won’t have a condition where office workers for instance or residents are 28
parking in the surface spaces all day long. Those will be high turnover spaces. 29
30
And if you come to look at this you will see this is an example of how the puzzle lifts work. When a 31
vehicle approaches it the occupant gets out. They use a fob that recognizes their car and the platform 32
that is reserved for their car moves into position. They get out of the car, hit the fob again and the gate 33
closes. Their car is relocated to its designated spot. If you go to retrieve your car it’s a similar activity. 34
You use the fob to call your car. The puzzle lifts move the car to the correct location, the gate opens, 35
you’re able to retrieve your car and then you close the gate again. 36
37
These photos off to the left are of a trip that was taken to an installation of this type of car stacking 38
machine here in Oakland. And we were very fortunate Amy French, Rafael Ruiz, and Jaime Rodriguez 39
from City staff were able to go and see the lifts in operation for themselves. And it is an unusual thing, 40
but I think for all of us seeing how they worked and how easily they worked gave us a great deal of 41
confidence to move forward with this proposal. Also you should know that the operators of this system 42
have installations throughout the Bay Area. Not all of them as large as the installation we’re proposing, 43
but I believe it’s 200 different locations throughout the Bay Area that they are utilizing products 44
manufactured by this company. 45
46
And we have some additional images of the project they’re probably better viewed on your screen. 47
Sorry, I’ll just close up. As you go through here you just see the different elevations and I hope you’ll 48
see the attention to detail that we’re bringing to the project with the change in scale between the 49
commercial and retail spaces versus the residential spaces with the private balconies. We’ve been 50
working to develop an interior courtyard space that would connect the upper and lower surface parking 51
lots that would provide a great deal of bicycle parking and open views between the site to help to 52
integrate it and take what had previously been a number of individual parcels, again some of them 53
parking or underuse parcels to turn it into one coherent project. And if you have any questions we’d be 54
more than happy to try and address them. Thank you very much for your time. 55
56
5
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. Aaron, what’s next? Are there other members of the applicant’s 1
team to speak on this or they just here questions? 2
3
Mr. Aknin: I believe that was just it so we’re here to answer questions or the applicant can answer 4
questions as well. 5
6
Chair Martinez: Ok, then we’re going to open the public hearing. Members of the public we have three 7
members of the public who wish to speak on this. Each will be given three minutes to speak. 8
9
Vice-Chair Michael: So, excuse me, the first speaker will be Arthur Liberman to be followed by Bob Moss. 10
11
Arthur Liberman: Good evening Commissioners. Again I live on Chimalus in Barron Park. We are a 12
neighborhood in Barron Park of over 1,500 residences just across and down a few blocks from 3159 El 13
Camino. I wanted to say that I’m pleased that I met the representative of the proponents of the 14
representative of this project. Their application I understand was submitted in January. I wish that we 15
had the opportunity to discuss the scope and impact of the project with members of our community 16
beforehand. The first that I heard about it was in the agenda packet for this meeting. And I would like 17
to suggest to the Planning Department and Commissioners that you really use your persuasive legal 18
powers, whatever you can do to encourage developers to meet with neighborhood association groups at 19
an early stage of the project formulation, not just before it comes before a commission for a hearing. 20
21
So we are some of the folks in Barron Park who might be walking down the street to dine at one of the 22
restaurants in your project. We also are some of the folks who will be affected by the traffic generated 23
by the project. And as was said in Oral Communications by Mr. Buchanan traffic is a common issue that 24
a number of the associations and parking is another issue a number of the associations are focusing on 25
because it’s a common issue. At a PAN meeting when Mayor Scharff came he asked each of the 26
members of the association of this representative what’s the principle issue that you’re concerned with? 27
Traffic, parking, parking, traffic, traffic and parking, parking, traffic. So you get the picture. This is kind 28
of the common issue that many of us are hearing from our members of our associations. 29
30
So I would just like to, you mentioned traffic does extend beyond the nearby streets. One of the 31
mitigated issues for that was mentioned in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), can’t 32
remember all the words, was a significant impact on Arastradero and West Charleston. That’s a mile and 33
a half away from this. So traffic does really go and extend beyond just the local area. and I wanted to 34
urge the Commission to try to focus on getting a comprehensive traffic study for the California Avenue 35
that actually I think had been begun, but it’s been parked into the Comprehensive Plan and it’s been 36
pushed down and down and at one, at some point it’s going to become irrelevant because all these 37
developments will happen before the plan is actually developed. 38
39
You really need to have a plan in place to know what the capacities are of the traffic infrastructure. The 40
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for example has a LOS methodology where they rate 41
the intersections. A lot of the intersections are already F. You can’t get below the F. That’s the bottom 42
line. How bad are we going to go? Without traffic study, a comprehensive traffic study to say what 43
really we can accept in our neighborhoods before people start using neighborhood streets and cause that 44
kind of problem you really need to have a comprehensive study. So that’s my suggestion for the 45
Commission. Thank you very much. 46
47
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Before the next speaker staff can you comment on neighborhood outreach 48
for this? What’s been happening? 49
50
Mr. Aknin: Yeah we typically encourage developers to do broader neighborhood outreach. In this case 51
the developer you could speak to, but in this case the only outreach that staff did was the standard 52
noticing of the 600 foot notice legal requirement. But I do agree with the speaker in common practice it 53
is good to have greater neighborhood outreach than less neighborhood outreach. 54
55
Chair Martinez: And the applicant? Can you speak to neighborhood outreach on this? 56
6
1
Ms. Young: Actually we did a good bit of outreach with the immediate adjacent neighbors, but did not 2
contact Barron Park folks. 3
4
Chair Martinez: Ok. Thank you. 5
6
Vice-Chair Michael: So the next speaker is Bob Moss to be followed by Mark Sabin. 7
8
Robert Moss: Thank you Chairman Martinez and Commissioners. To follow up on the outreach issue and 9
the problem a project of this scope definitely should have talked to the neighborhood associations, made 10
sure Barron Park, Charleston Meadows because this is going to have a horrendous impact on traffic. If 11
you’re familiar with that area if you’re driving north on El Camino between eight and ten o’ clock in the 12
morning traffic backs up bumper to bumper from Cambridge past Portage, sometimes several blocks past 13
Portage. In the evening rush hour it’s basically bumper to bumper from Page Mill all the way down past 14
Charleston and Arastradero. This project is not going to help that. It’s going to make it much worse. 15
And as Art said we’re going to have a risk of people ducking off El Camino and going through the 16
neighborhood. We’ve already had a significant increase in traffic on some of the neighborhood streets 17
because of the narrowing of Arastradero and blocking El Camino with more traffic isn’t going to make it 18
any better it’s going to make it worse. 19
20
There are a couple of other problems with this project. The first one is I think it looks much too massive 21
along El Camino. As you may recall the City Council wanted to have buildings setback and scale down 22
along El Camino so they didn’t just present a wall basically at the sidewalk. And that’s essentially what 23
this does. Having a little niche in the corner, let’s call it a semi architectural benefit doesn’t do it because 24
when you go down El Camino you just still see the wall. And if you want to see a really disastrous 25
mistake which emulates this, drive to Alma Plaza where the former Miki’s store was, I can’t tell you how 26
many people have told me how disgusted they are at that type of architecture and that lack of setback. 27
28
The second problem is I don’t see any reason why the 50 foot height limit should be exceeded. You have 29
a 50 foot height limit. If they can’t build as much interior space within 50 feet, cut it back. It’ll also help 30
the traffic. But we don’t want to have massive buildings creating major problems for traffic and 31
pedestrians and potential cut through traffic in neighborhoods just because somebody says, “Well I can 32
get away with it.” That’s not a good way of doing things and the traffic and the scale of the building I 33
think are going to be excessive. 34
35
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 36
37
Vice-Chair Michael: Next speaker is Mark Sabin to be followed by and I may have problems with your last 38
name, Richard Tevempler. 39
40
Mark Sabin: Good evening. A few weeks ago I was looking at Palo Alto Online and there was one piece 41
of information there. It said that the average house in Palo Alto was built in 1958. What I assume by 42
that is half the housing was built on or before 1958 and half was built after 1958. If that’s the case than 43
I don’t think anybody thinks that half the housing in Palo Alto should be demolished because it’s 50 years 44
old. I bring that up because anything that’s built now we should expect it to last more than 50 years. 45
And in less than 40 years we come up against maybe thirty-two mandates where carbon dioxide 46
production has to be 80 percent below what they were in 1990. So anything that gets built now is going 47
to factor in whether we’re going to meet that mandate gracefully or we have to do something drastically 48
be able to do it. 49
50
That’s why I think it’s important for developments like this to move forward because with more density 51
that’s closer to transit and also closer to commercial and services and all that sort of thing like this is you 52
have a development that I believe is more energy appropriate to what the realities are going to be in the 53
future. And so I think we’re going to be needing to look creatively at things like this more now and in the 54
future than we are in simply looking at traffic impacts and that sort of thing. Down the road traffic 55
impacts may be the least of our problems. While they are important, it’s really important I think to be 56
7
creative and give projects like this a serious look because we can either start planning for that or start 1
getting done for it if we’re not being aggressive about meeting those mandates that are becoming down 2
the road. Thank you. 3
4
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 5
6
Vice-Chair Michael: Next speaker is Richard Tevempler. 7
8
Richard Tevempler: Good evening and thank you for your time. I’m Richard Tevempler and I’m the 9
Director of Development for the Sobrato Organization and we are owners of 311 El Camino and 200 10
through 370 Portage Avenue. And we’re here tonight or I’m here tonight to support the project that’s 11
before you. I think it’s a good design and a good project along the El Camino. Thank you. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. That was our last speaker. We’re going to keep the public 14
hearing open for a time. Before we, it comes to the Commission City Attorney do you have something 15
you want to add? 16
17
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, you may want to offer the applicant some rebuttal time. 18
It’s customary in a quasi-judicial application to allow for that. 19
20
Chair Martinez: I will, but first I thought we might want to hear comments from the traffic consultants 21
that might be here because there were some significant issues raised about traffic impacts. 22
23
Mr. Aknin: He’s on his way up. 24
25
Jim Daiso, Traffic Engineer, Kimley-Horn and Associates: Good evening Commissioners, I’m Jim Daiso 26
with Kimley-Horn and Associates. I don’t have a formal presentation on the traffic study, but if you have 27
any questions I’d be happy to answer those. If not I can walk you through what we did in general, but I 28
think there might be some questions you would like answered. 29
30
Chair Martinez: Well members of the public raised some issues about the level of service along El Camino 31
and I thought you might want to address that in terms of the additional impacts if any of the proposed 32
project. 33
34
Mr. Daiso: Well the level of service element of the traffic study follows the Santa Clara VTA congestion 35
management program methodologies. Just about any project in Santa Clara County follows those 36
guidelines that are put out by Santa Clara VTA. And what it states is if it’s on the CMP network, the 37
Congestion Management Network or network of streets, highways, and intersections then there are 38
standards for level of service established for those. And the level of service established for most of those 39
intersections, if not all of them, is level of service E, which is in traffic engineering denoted by amount of 40
delays that an average driver would experience during the peak hour at a particular intersection. So to 41
determine impacts of a project on an intersection you measure how much additional delay that the 42
project would add to the intersection plus you look at how it might change the volume to capacity ratio, 43
which is another fancy term for how much of the capacity does the project take away from the general 44
motoring public. So you look at these two terms, these two calculations essentially. 45
46
We studied three fairly large or major intersections on either side of the project. And because it, the 47
project did not in our estimates of its traffic generation did not generate more than 100 trips in any given 48
period, which is the VTA’s CMP threshold for doing a major traffic study we looked at these three 49
intersections that were fairly major and potentially impacted so that the criteria we go by once we 50
generate, we estimate the traffic, we assign it to the roadways and based on existing patterns of travel 51
and then we look at, we use software and we calculate the delay and we look at the volume to capacity 52
ratio. Criteria states that if the project adds four seconds of delay or more plus and this is an and takes 53
away one percent of the intersection’s capacity for other people to use then it’s considered a significant 54
impact and requires mitigation. 55
56
8
So we found that of the three intersections we were studying the one I think is in most question is 1
Charleston and El Camino Real that it was operating at a level of service F, which is not meeting CMP 2
standards today. And we add a few seconds of delay to it over four and we in essence we did trigger an 3
impact so we were required to mitigate that impact. We barely went over the criteria requirements, but 4
it was easily mitigated by looking at the signal timing and optimizing the signal timing, which is clearly 5
stated in the VTA guidelines as a legitimate mitigation measure. So while we looked at the study we’re 6
doing a Mitigated Negative Declaration by definition we needed to mitigate the impacts. We had that one 7
impact; we mitigated it and brought it down to just slightly below where it was before without the 8
project. The issue is this impact occurs in the year 2025. So it doesn’t occur today, it doesn’t occur in 9
2015. It occurs in 2025. So implementation of the mitigation measure really doesn’t need to happen for 10
a long time and I think we’ll work with staff on how that gest implemented. I think it’s more likely 11
contribute to a fund or something for a future signal system upgrade of the El Camino Real corridor. In 12
general not aside from the comments we heard that’s in essence the summary of the project and its 13
impacts and mitigation. 14
15
Chair Martinez: Great, thank you. That was helpful. Commissioners any questions before he 16
(interrupted) 17
18
Mr. Aknin: Chair? 19
20
Chair Martinez: Yes. 21
22
Mr. Aknin: Just to reiterate one thing that the Traffic Engineer just touched on. The level of service at 23
Charleston and El Camino right now operates at a level D. It does not operate at a level F right now. 24
That’s projecting out to (interrupted) 25
26
Mr. Daiso: I’m sorry, that’s the future level of service. 27
28
Mr. Aknin: Future, not the current. 29
30
Chair Martinez: Ok. So things will get worse not better. Great feature. Ok. Commissioners, questions 31
or comments? Commissioner Panelli. Please. 32
33
Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. I’m going to ask staff some questions. Senior Planner Reich, 34
I want to, what I’m trying to understand is what in this project is absolutely by right versus what is being 35
asked for above and beyond by right? From what I understand and correct me if I’m wrong the density 36
bonus concession is a right, but we have discretion as to whether that’s the concession they get or can 37
you just give us a little more color and clarity there? 38
39
Mr. Reich: I’ll defer, thank you Commissioner Panelli, I’ll defer to the City Attorney to explain the 40
Commission’s purview over the concession. 41
42
Ms. Silver: Thank you. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. We’re in a bit of a limbo situation here 43
because we have not yet passed our Density Bonus Ordinance. So as you know the Planning Commission 44
has made a recommendation on the Density Bonus Ordinance and it will be going to the Council in 45
probably August for approval. But right now it has not been passed and so we must rely on the State 46
Density Bonus Law. So under State Density Bonus Law they are required or entitled to one concession 47
given the affordability restrictions of this particular project and that is by right in light of that fact that the 48
City does not have its own ordinance in place at this point. 49
50
Mr. Reich: And I just wanted to point out that the proposed concession of the 4,619 square feet that is 51
consistent with the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance that we’re proposing. So in the menu of items 52
that one can request for a concession in our proposed ordinance it specifies that an applicant can request 53
up to 50 percent additional FAR beyond what’s allowed in the code or up to the square footage of the 54
size of the additional restricted units. And so if you look at five units plus the associated area that is 55
needed in order to access them like the stairwells and the hallways and things like that it basically comes 56
9
up to that amount. So the request that they made would be consistent with what we’re considering 1
adopting in our ordinance. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Can I ask a follow up on that Russ? But aren’t they applying it to the commercial spaces? 4
5
Mr. Reich: The, our ordinance that’s in draft doesn’t specify how the square footage is allocated. It just 6
says, it just specifies what the potential limits that the City is looking at placing on them. Yes they are 7
diversifying the square footage; a portion of that for the residential and a portion for commercial. The 8
benefit though of using some of the square footage commercial though is that they have to fully park the 9
commercial where as if in the residential units under the State Density Bonus allowances they actually, 10
it’s a different parking calculation which results in fewer parking spaces. 11
12
Commissioner Panelli: Alright so let me just, just so it’s absolutely clear to me, the rest of my fellow 13
Commissioners, and all the public, members of the public the only way this would be not by right is if we 14
had a Density Bonus policy that was something different than what we’re proposing that would be more 15
restrictive than what we’re proposing? Would that be a fair way to characterize it? 16
17
Ms. Silver: Well first of all you’re of course only talking about the residential concession portion of this 18
project and the way our Density Bonus Ordinance is structured is that there are certain concessions on 19
the menu of concessions that are prioritized and an applicant is directed to those in the ordinance. If the 20
applicant wants to select a concession that’s not on the preferred menu they need to under the proposed 21
ordinance show economic justification for that. So they still theoretically could be entitled to additional 22
concessions, but there would be more scrutiny and it would come to this body and the Council for 23
approval. 24
25
Commissioner Panelli: Thank you for the clarification. Ok, so now that my understanding has been 26
validated and clarified further I’d like to understand this 5,000 square foot per parcel limit on office floor 27
area. And specifically I’m trying to understand why it’s a fixed number limit rather than a percentage of 28
FAR or percentage of… it sort of doesn’t make sense to me because as I understand it the applicant is in 29
the process of actually merging four lots. So theoretically by right for four smaller lots they could have 30
more office square footage than one larger lot of the exact same aggregate square footage. This makes 31
no sense to me and I really want staff to take a closer look at this and come up with a policy that’s more 32
sensible. Otherwise you could see some really weird behavior like trying to… first of all as I understand it 33
for this project they don’t need to merge these lots. They could just leave these as separate APN’s in 34
perpetuity, right? 35
36
Mr. Reich: They wouldn’t be able to build the project though because you can’t construct buildings over 37
property lines. So it really would hinder what you can do with the properties if they’re left individual. 38
39
Commissioner Panelli: You could make, well, ok. Fair enough. I’m thinking you can make them zero lot 40
lines buildings, but I understand. The point I’m trying to say is you could effectively build a similar 41
project. It might be a little goofy, but it’s, I just really wish that we could take a closer look at this and 42
come up with something that was more sensible. I’ve taken up enough time. I’m going to let my fellow 43
Commissioners chat and hopefully we’ll have another round. Thanks. 44
45
Chair Martinez: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner King. 46
47
Commissioner King: Thank you. So just to go back to confirm on the existing entitlements. So restating 48
this, so as things sit right now before the City Density Bonus the things that are not within existing 49
entitlements are the FAR, now at 1.06 when the standard FAR would be 1.0. Is that accurate? 50
51
Mr. Aknin: Correct. 52
53
Commissioner King: And please explain on that 50 foot height limit so where are we, I know there’s been 54
precedent I know I think the JCC, Lytton Gardens there were exceptions for either mechanical or other 55
reasons beyond the 50 foot limit. So I’m unclear on who gets to, if it is a breach of our ordinance who 56
10
gets to decide that we go over 50 feet and what is commonly done in the case of particularly mechanical 1
equipment? 2
3
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: I’ll answer that. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. The 4
Architectural Review Board (ARB) is the, designated in our code is the board to consider exceptions to 5
height above the maximum height limit in any district. And so there’s a menu of things that they have 6
that are in the code for criteria for consideration of a Design Enhancement Exception for being over 50 7
feet. Now there is provisions in the code that allow mechanical screens to go 15 feet above the height 8
limit. So you could have without an exception just by right. So they can have their mechanical screen go 9
15 feet above the height limit. They’re doing 5 feet above the height limit for the mechanical screen and 10
that’s allowed. It’s the areas between those (interrupted) 11
12
Commissioner King: The loft areas (interrupted) 13
14
Ms. French: Yes. 15
16
Commissioner King: That are outside of the existing entitlement (interrupted) 17
18
Ms. French: Yes. 19
20
Commissioner King: Without any exception. Ok. 21
22
Ms. French: Yes. 23
24
Commissioner King: Yeah. 25
26
Chair Martinez: As a follow-up on that? Ms. City Attorney, is that entirely correct that it is the 27
Architectural Review Board that has purview over deciding height when it’s something expressed in our 28
Comprehensive Plan? I find that odd. 29
30
Ms. Silver; The Architectural Review Board has purview over the Design Enhancement Exception. And 31
typically we have implemented height variances through a Design Enhancement Exception administered 32
by the ARB. There’s also certainly a policy discussion in our Comprehensive Plan about the 50 foot height 33
limit, but the code does envision that there will be some modifications administered by the ARB. 34
35
Ms. French: I might add that in the case of a Site and Design Review, which is ultimately it’s not the 36
Director’s approval as would be a standard ARB decision. So in this case for this project the Design 37
Enhancement Exception is a Council decision. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Thank you for that. Sorry. 40
41
Commissioner King: Thank you. And so the next, my question is regarding the traffic impacts. So at 42
what point do traffic impacts impede then the users or owners’ rights to the existing entitlements? In 43
which case there would be some reason for us to deny them building out existing entitlements. 44
45
Mr. Aknin: I think if you were in the situation where there was an impact that could not be mitigated and 46
you, so then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would have to be considered and there would 47
potentially have to be something called a Statement of Overriding Considerations that the Planning 48
Commission and Council would have to adopt. And a Statement of Overriding Considerations would say 49
some, you know, could range a thing but it would basically say there’s benefits that outweigh this impact 50
that cannot be mitigated and in that case you might say that that hey, it doesn’t outweigh it. I don’t 51
think we should approve this project. But in this case there is a mitigation measure that could mitigate 52
the impact. 53
54
The other thing I’d like to add and we touched on this somewhat in the previous hearing on the golf 55
course and this is kind of a Planning 101 thing is that even though these are all categorized as net new 56
11
trips I think the idea of putting this type of housing near employment that is in reality they are potentially 1
not all net new trips; that you’re actually bringing the workforce closer to the jobs. So in many cases you 2
have people commuting far away, commuting in impacting intersections at a greater radius, but I think 3
the overall goal of cities up and down the El Camino Real is to put housing on El Camino so that you are 4
closer to jobs so that people could walk to work or commute shorter distances to work. 5
6
Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. And by the way so it sounds like through technology that mitigation 7
is sort of getting something for nothing through a change to a timing of the light. Do we believe that 8
that’s inarguable, that by doing that those, that is mitigated? 9
10
Mr. Aknin: Yeah I think for this potential project, yes. I think as we go on as a City and we take a 11
comprehensive look at things I think there could be greater things that we do both to intersections and to 12
reducing our overall workforce and the amount of people that commute by car. So I think it’s going to be 13
a more comprehensive approach and there’s other things we could do. But for this particular impact 14
doing better, synchronizing the intersection better will mitigate that potential impact. 15
16
Commissioner King: Ok. Thank you. And then my other concern, my next question is really regarding 17
parking. So let’s see, where to start. So one question is regarding that puzzle lifts I guess my questions 18
are, are the other locations in which those are apparently successfully implemented are those in a similar 19
location where there is overflow parking? And maybe staff could address where overflow parking might 20
go here, which I believe would probably be along El Camino Real, along the surface streets. So I guess 21
my concern is if those were in downtown San Francisco or downtown Oakland where there really is no 22
other parking nearby I would expect that the users of those lifts would be quite happy to use them 23
because there is no other parking. Here there’s parking quite nearby and so my concern is how long do 24
those things take? Are people going to say, “Well I’m going to be there for four hours instead of using 25
the lifts I’m going to park on the street.” 26
27
And the following to that is particularly with the State parking requirements, which are one parking space 28
for a one bedroom apartment there’s just no way there aren’t going to be two people with two cars. It’s 29
very unlikely that there aren’t going to be some people. So in my mind we’re building in some level of 30
under parking and so my concern is where does that overflow parking go? 31
32
And then lastly regarding the lifts how much energy do they use? Are we looking at that? And does that 33
impact, is that factored into the Silver Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) designation? 34
Do they look at the fact that there’s some amount of energy being used every time someone parks a car? 35
Thank you. 36
37
Mr. Aknin: I will pass most of those technical questions about the amount of wait time and electrical 38
usage to the applicant. Perhaps they can answer that because they know more details about that. In 39
terms of LEED designation yes it does take a look at overall energy use. So that would be calculated into 40
that. 41
42
Ms. Young: Thank you. Yes, the project is anticipated as a LEED Silver project. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Excuse me Ms. Young. Identify yourself please. 45
46
Ms. Young: Heather Young. 47
48
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 49
50
Ms. Young: The project is anticipated as a LEED Silver project and as you know LEED projects are not all 51
or nothing. There’s a balance of means that you use to achieve that level of sustainability. We have 52
been working with our Electrical Engineer on the electrical requirements and a base level is going to 53
require us to beat California Title 24, which is already higher than the national standard for a base 54
electrical usage. We are actually hoping, we’re planning that seven of the parking spaces in the puzzle 55
12
lift system will be electric vehicle charging stations. So we’re excited that we actually have that 1
opportunity sort of built in to using them. 2
3
Regarding the time that it takes to actually access your vehicle, for the largest of the machines and the 4
machines can handle anywhere between 5 and 29 cars depending on how they’re configured. For the 5
largest machine it takes a minute or less to put your car in or retrieve your car. And we think that 6
contrasted with circling around and looking for a parking space knowing I have a spot I can get in and 7
out that there won’t be a temptation to put your car in a non, in another spot as opposed to using your 8
designated spot. 9
10
Commissioner King: And can you address, do you know how much energy each time that cycle occurs 11
how much energy that uses? 12
13
Ms. Young: I don’t. I know that each machine has a 30 amp dedicated circuit for it. So it’s not as much 14
as you’d think. It’s a fairly standard geared system. So it’s more of a machine than you might think. We 15
can get that answer for you at a later date if you don’t mind. 16
17
Commissioner King: Well I would be curious; I mean I think it’s important (interrupted) 18
19
Ms. Young: Sure. 20
21
Commissioner King: If we’re saying because that’s, I think that’s about somewhere around 2,500 watts or 22
something. So it would be like burning a 2,500 watt light bulbs obviously for a very short period of time. 23
24
Ms. Young: Short period of time. 25
26
Commissioner King: 30 amps is not insignificant. So ok, thank you. And then I guess I could address 27
this one to you while we’re, on the bike parking. So I note references to bike parking and I hope that to 28
staff that we start looking at bike parking requirements for new residences as well. I believe that’s 29
important particularly when they’re small residences, studios, one bedrooms where there often isn’t a lot 30
of space. I see references to adequate bicycle parking and ample bicycle parking, but no actual metrics 31
unless I missed them in here. 32
33
Ms. Young: We actually did put them in our drawing package. I don’t know if you received that. 34
35
Commissioner King: Oh yeah, this one? 36
37
Ms. Young: Yes, thank you. It should be right (interrupted) 38
39
Commissioner King: So if they’re in here, that’s fine. I’ll address them (interrupted) 40
41
Ms. Young: And it includes both short term and long term bicycle parking. And as to your comment 42
about bicycle parking for the residences, many of the residences have a designated bike parking spot in 43
the unit. And we did that specifically because so many of the residents might have a more expensive 44
bicycle that they would not be excited about leaving out of their responsible control. And that’s part of 45
the unit design is to have a long term bike parking for them. 46
47
Commissioner King: Great, thank you. And then just to finish back to the other part of the question on 48
have we studied where if people do not park, if the building is under parked as I mentioned based on the 49
State requirements I can’t see how it won’t be at least somewhat under parked, the residences, where 50
people will park? 51
52
Mr. Aknin: No we haven’t taken a look at specifically where they would park, but I think there’s two 53
answers to that. I think the first is that I don’t believe, I don’t think it’s necessarily true that it’s under 54
parked. I think you have a lot of smaller units there and you have people who are in close proximity to 55
major employment centers. So there’s not as much of a drive for every single person to own a car. And 56
13
then the second thing I would say is that there is commercial parking there, that surface parking that’s 1
probably not going to be used during the peak time that’s necessary for residential. So I could see a 2
situation where if there is to someone or a guest or someone that needs to park is visiting the residence 3
that they could use that commercial parking, that surface lot, because it’s not going to be in use as much 4
during the peak residential parking crunch. 5
6
Commissioner King: Ok, thanks. And then lastly in the numbers for parking it shows we would be 80.25 7
spots would be the City’s parking requirement. And this is somewhat trivial, but I think it’s important to 8
understand. And so then we rounded down when we say there’s a 31 based on the State requirements, 9
that’s 31 less than our requirements, but really it’s 32 if we were to be at 81. So do we round down? Is 10
that what we do if it’s, if the parking requirement is 80.25 we round to 80? 11
12
Mr. Aknin: It’s 0.5 we round up, 0.49 we round down. 13
14
Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. Thank you. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 17
18
Commissioner Tanaka: Yes. I actually had some questions around parking as well. So I think this 19
project’s kind of unique because it has, it’s truly mixed-use right? It has all types of uses on this 20
property. And because of that I think sometimes for instance the office may be parked during the day 21
and residential may not be parked because the person that lives there is driving somewhere else. Has 22
there been, is there any guidance on, because you don’t see too many projects like this where they have 23
truly a lot of different uses where I think, I guess what I’m trying to get at is that there is like non-24
overlapping periods of parking in terms of, not all the office people are going to be there when the 25
residential people are going to be there, right? And vice-versa. And I guess is there anything that 26
factors that into this project? All of the parking mandates are kind of assuming it’s all one type of 27
property, right? And so everyone’s going to be parking at the same time. Like all during the day or all at 28
night. 29
30
Mr. Reich: There’s actually reductions that an applicant can request from the City when they’re doing 31
mixed-used because there is the understanding that there will be that potential overlap in parking. Office 32
use might be more intensive during the day and residential less and vice-a-versa, but this applicant’s not 33
asking for any reduction related to the mixed-use. So there’s a benefit of that interaction will definitely 34
take place in a project like this where the parking would be reciprocal in that nature, but they’re not 35
asking for a reduction for it. 36
37
Commissioner Tanaka: I see, ok. And then the other thing is so if the office is 250 square feet for each 38
space, right? And then for the residential so I guess it’s depending on what size unit it is, but I guess 39
what I’m interested in knowing is for the residential studio units how much, how big are each unit? Do 40
you know? I’m just trying to figure out which is more parking. The studio? I mean if it was actually 41
used for office. 42
43
Mr. Reich: The square footage of the units vary. I could defer to the applicant to specify the actual 44
square footage, but the parking requirement is, changes depending on the number of bedrooms. So for 45
a studio it’s one parking space required. For a one bedroom it’s 1 space, but when you have a two 46
bedroom unit it actually moves up to 2 parking spaces per unit. 47
48
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. 49
50
Mr. Reich: But there’s only one 2 bedroom unit within the development. 51
52
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. And then right now some of the properties aren’t being used right now where 53
the project is not used or not fully used. Was the traffic study done in such a way that it’s anticipating 54
that those are in full use? I guess what I’m trying to figure out is there’s the current condition today, 55
which is kind of maybe below normal because some of the properties are vacant, are simply not being 56
14
used. And so I guess I’m trying to understand the delta like from if the traffic study was done now or is 1
projected forward after this project’s built and it’s fully used compared to a project which a lot of the 2
property is vacant. So I’m trying to see the delta between like not just what it is today, but what it would 3
have been today had it been fully used versus what it will be when this project’s built and being fully 4
used. 5
6
Mr. Aknin: Correct, so and the Traffic Engineers could correct me if I’m wrong, but there was an existing, 7
they basically used three different measures: existing, a background analysis, as well as a cumulative 8
analysis. So they take a look at how are the current intersections working under existing conditions with 9
current counts; then they build on this project that you’re adding this many more people to the site and 10
then they’re also projecting growth out through the year 2025 doing two major things, taking into 11
consideration major projects. For instance, if the 395 Page Mill project is built plus putting in a 1.1 12
percent growth factor overall with the City and having that compound over the years up until the year 13
2025. 14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: I see. Ok. And then the loft on the top floor is that part of the residential Floor 16
Area Ratio or is that excluded? 17
18
Mr. Reich: It’s included in the square footage. 19
20
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. And then in terms of our purview for tonight’s meeting this is not a Planned 21
Community (PC) so we can’t just make arbitrary recommendation I would assume, but maybe, I don’t 22
know, maybe we could hear a little bit about what kind of recommendations can we make and what is, 23
kind of what is our scope and purview given this type of project? 24
25
Mr. Aknin: There would have to be some nexus requirement, but I mean if there’s something that you 26
want to consider I mean that’s always said you have something specific that you would like to consider 27
related to the project I mean we could help think through that and whether or not there’s a nexus of that 28
condition. 29
30
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. 31
32
Ms. French: Amy French. I might just add we certainly have provided the Site and Design Review 33
findings and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings. Those are both in your area to look at those findings 34
and consider how you’re looking at those. 35
36
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Thank you. 37
38
Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Michael. 39
40
Vice-Chair Michael: So I want to thank my colleagues for asking the easy questions about the height limit 41
and traffic and parking. So all that’s left is the easy stuff. So I recall when I applied for a vacancy on the 42
Planning Commission and interviewed by Council at one point I was asked what I thought would be an 43
important issue for the City. And I think my answer was mixed-use and California Avenue area and I’m 44
not sure why I said that, but this project seems to fit that expectation. And Council Member Burt said 45
just wait till you see the California Avenue Concept Plan, and I think we’re still waiting for that, but… 46
47
So I’ve got a number of questions in the order of importance. You’ve got bike parking and maybe this is 48
a question for the City staff. I’ve ridden my bike sort of along there and it’s kind of scary. Is there sort 49
of a bike lane under consideration or some short of a share the road? I mean I had to go from Mike’s 50
Bikes to the California Avenue area to make a purchase and I was taking my life in my hands. So what’s 51
up with that? 52
53
Mr. Aknin: Are you speaking on El Camino or? 54
55
Vice-Chair Michael: Yeah. 56
15
1
Mr. Aknin: Yeah, Rafael Rius is coming up from our Transportation Division. I think I’d give a general 2
question about El Camino. It is a scary place to ride a bike. I think that’s all the way from South San 3
Francisco to San Jose and Palo Alto is one of nineteen different jurisdictions that’s working on grand 4
boulevard improvements now through the next 20 years, 30 years and I think making the El Camino 5
pedestrian as well as safe for bicycles is one of the key goals, but it’s something that’s going to happen 6
incrementally. And I agree with you right now it’s not a safe place to ride a bike. 7
8
Rafael Rius, Traffic Engineer – Transportation: Hi, Rafael Rius, a Traffic Engineer with the City staff. 9
Aaron’s correct, there’s incremental studies. There’s not currently a proposal for bike lanes on El Camino 10
at the moment. We are trying to make efforts to improve the bike boulevard along Park and access to 11
and from Park Boulevard. That’s currently the City’s busiest bike route and we do want to do emphasis 12
on and improvements along that route, which is not too far from this project site. 13
14
Vice-Chair Michael: Ok. So my next question and this is all pretty random, so we have a Housing 15
Element and it’s gone, it’s been approved by the Council it’s not yet been certified by the State. We’ve 16
got a target to add some number of housing units to the City. This project would add some housing 17
units. Can you bring up to date on how this contributes to the City’s targets? 18
19
Ms. French: Well the Housing Element looked at this site as, with all three sites together as 32 units; a 20
reasonable number. Of course with the Density Bonus it goes above that and the smaller units so looking 21
at the minimum number of units was 32. And then is that true for or does that add to is? So it was 30 22
units for three of the addresses. The fourth address I guess has another 8. It wasn’t included in the 23
Housing Element. So I guess that would bring it to 40 units under the current Housing Element that’s 24
been approved by the City. 25
26
Vice-Chair Michael: And it’s 40 out of how many? What’s our total that we? 27
28
Ms. French: The total for this project is 48. 29
30
Vice-Chair Michael: But for the City? What’s the City’s total? 31
32
Ms. French: About 2,800 for the entire. 2,860. 33
34
Vice-Chair Michael: Ok. We had a project at Lytton Gateway that was going to have some Below Market 35
Rate units and then it wasn’t going to have Below Market Rate units and this is going to have BMR units 36
and that looks to be a new thing, but in the prior discussion there was a lot of questions about what were 37
the details? I mean is this forever or maybe the applicant can explain how’s the Below Market program 38
work? How many units are these studio units, one bedroom units? What’s the allocation and is this 39
forever and ever or is it for 10 years or what’s, any details that are relevant? 40
41
Mr. Aknin: The applicant could give an explanation of which units are there. It’s a minimum, we’ll take a 42
look, but it’s a minimum of 30 years for the affordability. But why doesn’t the applicant explain more of 43
the details of how the units will be dispersed around the development? 44
45
Ms. Young: As you saw in the massing diagrams we’ve got residential on the second, third, and fourth 46
floors on Portage, Acacia, and El Camino. There are studio, one bedroom, and then the single two 47
bedroom unit. Our goal is to have a diversity of unit types and locations that are the five designated 48
units. And we’ll be working with the City staff to make sure it’s a good representation. The units have 49
slightly different sizes and qualities and our goal is to have the five units be a reasonable representation 50
of the overall project. 51
52
Vice-Chair Michael: Ok, that’s good. Thank you. And the next question relates to the sidewalk and in our 53
packet that we got in the staff report there was a discussion of the build to setback requirement, which 54
basically I believe means you have to make sort of a narrow sidewalk in order to build to the setback, yet 55
16
we have a civic kind of objective of widening the sidewalks. Can you explain to me exactly how we strike 1
the balance here between the build to setback requirement and the sidewalk width? 2
3
Ms. French: Amy French. I’ll add to that or start with that. That is what you’re seeing here is a request 4
to not be at the build to line. The build to line is for, is to say put 75 percent of your building wall at the 5
build to line along El Camino. I believe it’s 75 percent. Is it 50? Ok. Because we don’t want to see 6
parking lots basically. The old model of El Camino was to have parking lots in the front and the buildings 7
push way back. So the El Camino guidelines, the context base guidelines, and the zoning code now are 8
geared up towards having buildings forward on the street towards the sidewalk and having more building 9
up at that level rather than pushed back. Now striking the balance is providing the terraces that they’re 10
providing, looking for landscaping. We are going to be coming back to the Planning and Transportation 11
Commission as well as the ARB in a joint meeting at the end of this month to talk about some possibilities 12
for going forward with some different standards. But currently the standard is 12 foot effective sidewalk 13
from curb face to building and then what our current regulations and guidelines say is to bring most of 14
the building forward. We’re trying to see that loosened up with pedestrian amenities like the terrace for 15
dining along the pedestrian right of way there. 16
17
Vice-Chair Michael: Ok. And then I guess maybe unlike Alma Plaza there’s a little bit of fenestration here. 18
I mean the building mass is a little bit more attractive than… ok. That wasn’t a question. On the 19
commercial occupancy and the traffic impact is there going to be a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) 20
aspect to this? Caltrain passes or some sort of encouragement for people who work in the commercial 21
space to utilize transit? 22
23
Mr. Reich: Because the project is complaint with parking for all intents and purposes and there was no 24
significant impacts that need to be mitigated other than the one there was no proposal for TDM program 25
for the project. 26
27
Vice-Chair Michael: Is that something that could be done voluntarily because it’s a good thing to do? 28
29
Mr. Reich: Certainly. 30
31
Vice-Chair Michael: Ok. That’s it. 32
33
Chair Martinez: Rather than voluntarily can we make that as a recommendation that has a little bit of 34
strength to it? Someone? 35
36
Ms. Silver: Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. You might want to discuss certain refinements to 37
the project that would encourage TDM measures. I know that there’s currently some bike parking, which 38
is certainly an aspect of TDM. So we’d have to see what you have in mind and we can work with you 39
and I’m sure the applicant will also work with the Commission to come up with some TDM programs. 40
41
Chair Martinez: Well there is a recommendation in our Comprehensive Plan. I don’t know whether it’s in 42
the amended one yet to be adopted that there be TDM as sort of general policy throughout downtown 43
and El Camino. So it’s not sort of out of our realm of desiring this to be something that goes forth with 44
every project. So this is a good place to start. 45
46
Speaking of which I’m going to be Chair for at least another 30 days and I am going to declare a 47
moratorium on saying “The El Camino Real,” Interim Planning Director, ok? I’m from Los Angeles (LA) so 48
we say things like “The 101” and “The 405,” but we don’t say “The El Camino.” 49
50
Ms. City Attorney, do we have to accept BMR’s. I know that’s kind of nutty to ask that, but do we have 51
to accept it when an applicant says they want to do this? 52
53
Ms. Silver: Was the question do we have to accept BMR’s? 54
55
Chair Martinez: Yes. 56
17
1
Ms. Silver: Yes under the State Density Bonus Law it is a requirement. 2
3
Chair Martinez: So if any applicant comes forward and they want to build one or ten or whatever the 4
number that works in their development we’re required to say yes? But what, I’m sorry, I didn’t give you 5
a chance there. 6
7
Ms. Silver: Yes, that’s correct. You do have some discretion in certain instances on the overall density. If 8
they’re seeking more density than is allowed under the zoning code of course that’s where discretion 9
comes into play. But if the density complies with the existing zoning code and they want to dedicate a 10
certain number of those units as BMR’s in order to take advantage of the State Density Bonus law they 11
are entitled to do that by right. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Well that’s good to know. And what is our BMR benefit that we’re receiving? I mean 14
what is the difference between a Market Rate (MR) studio rent and a BMR studio rent? Do we know for 15
this project? Any speculation or? 16
17
Ms. Silver: I don’t know and I don’t know that we have landed on the mixture of units. It might be some 18
low, very low, and moderate income dispersed in this project. There certainly is a considerable difference 19
in Market Rate between Market Rate housing and BMR housing in this area and in the Peninsula in 20
general. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Well Below Market in this area can be much higher than other areas. So I’m just 23
wondering whether there really is a substantial benefit that we’re receiving for the impacts we’re also 24
receiving. Do we know? 25
26
Mr. Aknin: I don’t know, we don’t know the exact rents, but that’s something we could report back to the 27
Commission on. 28
29
Chair Martinez: Ok. 30
31
Mr. Aknin: Overall obviously and the Commission knows this but the public may not, it’s tied to the 32
median income. So you take the median income. It has to be affordable depending on what type of 33
moderate income unit has to be affordable to someone who earns 80 percent of the median income. A 34
low has to be affordable to someone who earns 60 percent of the median income. I believe an extremely 35
low is 30 or 40 percent of the median income. So it depends on what rate of affordability as well as what 36
the median income is at the time. But given where rents are right now from what I’ve seen there is a 37
pretty big discrepancy between Market Rate and affordable units. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Alright, that’s good to know. So we may get some very low in this offering by the 40
applicant. Is that true or we don’t know? Yes, please. 41
42
Mr. Aknin: You could ask the applicant. 43
44
Ms. Young: We’ve had preliminary discussions with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) and our 45
initial discussions with them indicated that the project would be for low income housing. That there are 46
substantial waiting lists for all levels of housing and that with the quantity that we have and the overall 47
project that low income housing is a good approach. 48
49
Chair Martinez: Yeah, that sounds good but that means it’s their discretion to decide if it’s very low. 50
51
Ms. Young: I don’t think it’s wholly at their discretion. I think it’s, we work with them to identify the units 52
and to set that, but our understanding is that they would be looking to this project for low income units. 53
54
Chair Martinez: Ok. Since you’re there Ms. Young I’m going to switch gears. In the reduced parking 55
that’s allotted I read in the chart in the staff report that 16 spaces are being eliminated for guest parking. 56
18
Does that, and zero guest parking spaces are required. Does that mean there’s not going to be any 1
guest parking available for housing units? 2
3
Ms. Young: It means that guest parking is not required for the housing units as per the government 4
code. The parking facility as I mentioned before has a mix of the puzzle lifts as well as the surface 5
spaces and there are, I’m going to get the number wrong… over 200, sorry? 6
7
Mr. Reich: Well in the Portage garage there’s 192 spaces. 8
9
Ms. Young: Correct. And then the new project has additional non puzzle spaces which are available for 10
parking. And I think it was also pointed out earlier that with the mixed-use occupancy of the site there is 11
a much larger likelihood that in the evening hours when the 48 residential units are occupied that the 12
office and the commercial recreation and the retail functions would not be occupied so there should be 13
ample parking for guests at that time. 14
15
Chair Martinez: But so there will be guest parking but you still are receiving a reduced parking, which 16
means that those added or available guest parking spaces will be counted by taking away from 17
residential parking or from the office parking? 18
19
Ms. Young: No I’m just saying that because it’s a mixed-use project that the time that the parking spaces 20
are utilized is truly a 24 hour cycle, not focused on a 10 hour workday. And (interrupted) 21
22
Chair Martinez; But not the lift parking, that (interrupted) 23
24
Ms. Young: The lift parking is 24 hour reserved spots. Those are your spot is your spot is your spot. 25
26
Chair Martinez: Right, yeah. I can’t see how that could be used for you know if it’s available somebody 27
could use it. 28
29
Ms. Young: Correct and it’s the non-lift spots, which are more than 50 percent of the overall spots in the 30
Portage and the El Camino garage that are used by first come first served. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Ok. As long as you’re still here the lofts (interrupted) 33
34
Ms. Young: Yes. 35
36
Chair Martinez: That takes you up to 55 feet. Can you do it without asking for, maybe this is a staff 37
question, but I think you’re familiar with architectural review. Can you do it without asking for a DEE? 38
39
Ms. Young: Our understanding is that you do need a DEE, a Design Enhancement Exception, to allow for 40
the occupied use in that additional five feet. The five feet as you know is a required roof screen element 41
because we have rooftop mechanical equipment. We’re required to put a roof screen on all sides of the 42
building to screen it visually. And our concept was that the mass of that roof screen was already part of 43
the project and that this was an opportunity as I pointed out to find a creative way to improve and 44
enhance the housing stock by adding just that little bit, that five feet allow us to tuck in an extra little bit 45
of housing. I hope that answered the question. 46
47
Chair Martinez: Well no I get it, but I’m still not that happy with it. I think it works architecturally 48
because you’re stepping back from the street. It’s not entirely, it’s visible if you’re walking in front of the 49
building. You’ll never see it. El Camino Real, the El Camino Real is really wide so it’s in scale to 50
everything and it’s not very much. It’s just five feet. 51
52
Ms. Young: So you love it? 53
54
Chair Martinez: I love it a lot, but not as a DEE. It just seems that the design enhancements were meant 55
for architectural elements that weren’t part of your FAR. 56
19
1
Ms. Young: So let me try it this way. The roof screen could have been an inexpensive corrugated clotting 2
material, but because we are utilizing it for the lofts we’re actually improving the quality of that exterior 3
wall material and we’re unifying the look of the roof screen across the top of the building. So we actually 4
do feel that we are achieving those nice things that you said as well as aesthetically improving what 5
would have been a rational roof screen. 6
7
Chair Martinez: But you’re adding building height and you’re adding FAR. So why don’t we (interrupted) 8
9
Ms. Young: We are entitled, yes. We are. 10
11
Chair Martinez: So I’m just looking at zoning and just trying to make it work and not… well, and respect 12
zoning as you would want to as well. I just staff… anyone? Commissioners? Commissioner Panelli any 13
ideas on this? 14
15
Commissioner Panelli: Well, maybe this is another way to tackle it. I’d like to ask our staff if we didn’t 16
allow that extra five feet for the loft space would not the applicant have the right to instead of have a 17
fourth floor that’s stepped back build right up so that we have a monolith, four story monolith kind of like 18
what we ended up with on Charleston and San Antonio? 19
20
Ms. French: Yeah. The displaced loft area could be placed elsewhere in the massing including forward of 21
the fourth floor building mass, including in the interior of the site for a more blockish appearance. 22
23
Commissioner Panelli: So I would propose, I would suggest that what the applicant has proposed here is 24
even though it violates the 50 foot height limit it’s actually better than what they would be allowed to do 25
by right. 26
27
Chair Martinez: Well that doesn’t help. I’ve already agreed with that. What I’m trying to do is respect 28
zoning and not call it something that it isn’t because it in creating this form it surpasses what zoning 29
allows without these exceptions in two areas that are important to the City and especially the height limit. 30
So staff is there any kind of ideas about how this can be achieved without calling it a Design 31
Enhancement that makes it a little more acceptable to us? To me. 32
33
Mr. Aknin: So the City Attorney and I were just discussing you could potentially ask for another Density 34
Bonus Concession to allow to the height. It would get you to the same place as doing a Design 35
Enhancement Exception so we just, it would be just going a different route with the same outcome. 36
37
Chair Martinez: And that’s permitted under the State law or are we kind of stretching that too? 38
39
Ms. Silver: An enhancement in excess of 50 feet would be allowed under State Density Bonus law. Again, 40
it would not however be consistent with the pending Ordinance, which does state that the menu of 41
concessions shall not include height increases above 50 feet. It may be possible for them to receive that 42
type of enhancement though upon a showing of economic need under the City’s proposed ordinance. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Michael, help me out. 45
46
Vice-Chair Michael: So I’m very sympathetic to Chair Martinez wrestling with the implications of 47
respecting the zoning ordinance, but let me just kind of put out a personal and maybe somewhat 48
contrary opinion and that is that I’ve often wondered not as an architect, not as a Planning Commissioner 49
the mechanical structures on top of roofs with the screening always seemed to me to be pretty 50
unattractive. I mean I think they’re eyesores. Every time I’ve seen that I’ve had a very visceral negative 51
reaction to is this necessary? Is there any other way? So I think that the approach here to do something 52
functional and also kind of improve the visual aspect of what would otherwise be allowed in terms of the 53
screening of the mechanical elements I think is interesting. It may be something that’s actually properly 54
in front of the ARB in one way or another rather than a land use question for the Planning Commission, 55
but I think that the height limit itself is obviously a big issue in Palo Alto and the opinions differ on that. 56
20
But I think this is a pretty practical and aesthetic attempt to do, to combine what you’re allowed to do 1
with something which would actually be beneficial for this particular project. 2
3
Chair Martinez: You still want to add something Commissioner Panelli? 4
5
Commissioner Panelli: Well I hate to follow up something so beautiful and eloquent as Commissioner 6
Michael or Vice-Chair Michael just suggested, but getting back to tactics and simply trying to assuage 7
your conscious I’m going to try one more time to convince you it can be a DEE. If there’s going to be a 8
five foot mechanical screen without that FAR for those lofts at least in this case that screen is effectively 9
broken up by a series of windows or skylights, right? Which to me breaks up that monotony of a five 10
foot screen that would be effectively what is that? Two hundred and something, two hundred feet 11
maybe? So I’ll see if that one passes your muster. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Well we’re all arguing that it’s attractive, but I think you’re both missing the point. The 14
point is if we establish this precedent of a DEE being allowed for livable building height then the next 15
project we get will have the same thing. And I think it’s fine if the City Council decides to change the 16
building, it’s their decision to raise the building height because there’s some practicalities. As an architect 17
I know that building a four story building to 50 feet is really hard and it’s kind of a press of space. So I 18
understand why there should be some flexibility, but unless it’s addressed directly that it can be 19
permitted calling it a DEE is really an aberration of zoning. So I’ll just leave it at that. You can all decide 20
for yourselves how you want to proceed on that. 21
22
Couple other questions. On this rendering you have from Portage what is that dark space on the corner 23
again? 24
25
Ms. Young: This area is a double height retail space and on the third floor is part of the office space that 26
extends along the El Camino frontage. Is this what you’re referring to? 27
28
Chair Martinez: Right. 29
30
Ms. Young: I apologize. It is a technical glitch in our model. It’s actually something that’s happening 31
interior. It won’t be a part of the exterior façade. I apologize. 32
33
Chair Martinez: Ok, good. Ok, I’m going to just say a couple of things. I think as an example of good 34
urban design this is a great project. I think what’s happening on the streetscape is wonderful. The small 35
but important corner that we’re looking at now I think we should find a way to incorporate more ideas 36
like that. If you look at some of the old urban design in Palo Alto and other good downtowns there’s a 37
lot of these corners that are open like that. And I think it’s a very attractive building. 38
39
I’m not excited about the traffic. Parking I think we really need to find a way that every major project 40
that comes before us parks itself without concessions. I know that’s difficult given the mandate of the 41
State, but I think there’s some overriding considerations. We’ve heard it from the neighbors. We hear it 42
every time. We see it in every project including the next one we’re going to hear that it’s parking, 43
parking, parking. I want to thank you Ms. Young. I think you and your firm did a great job and I’ll bring 44
it back to the Commissioner for a Motion and further discussion and questions. Yes, Commissioner King. 45
46
Commissioner King: Yeah so this is for Senior Assistant Attorney. Regarding the BMR and the 30 year 47
period I think in my mind it’s insane or criminal that the entitlements, the upgraded entitlements go for 48
perpetuity and the BMR lasts a very finite period of time. But my recollection is when we had this 49
discussion before regarding the 30 years before it reverts to market is that we really can’t do anything 50
about that. Correct? That it’s the… yes, that’s my question. 51
52
Ms. Silver: Yes, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. That’s correct the State Density Bonus Law 53
does specify that the applicant only needs to deed restrict the affordable units for 30 years in certain 54
situations and I believe it’s 50 years for moderate income units. And the City you’re correct cannot do 55
anything about that. 56
21
1
Commissioner King: And that would include there’s no legal way that we could do any sort of additional 2
benefits so we would say well if you agree to this in perpetuity we’ll give you some additional benefits? 3
4
Ms. Silver: That would be perhaps applicable to a Planned Community zone or a development agreement. 5
6
Commissioner King: Thank you. And then lastly regarding timing so my sense is and my observation is 7
that we get these projects and it’s natural for a developer to want to max things out and sometimes 8
they’ll come in a bit over. You rarely get one coming in a bit under their maximum entitlements. And so 9
in this case we’re talking about the 1.06 FAR, which and in general I like the project I think it’s positive, 10
but I don’t like when things are over. But now we’re saying however under the, if the City Council passes 11
the new Density Bonus, the City Density Bonus that that would be within those future, that future 12
Ordinance. My concern is now we’re being asked to approve it; in my mind if that didn’t pass then I 13
would not want to support this. So my question is we’re being asked to support this based on what 14
might happen or that’s part of the equation. Do you have any advice on that? 15
16
Ms. Silver: The applicant is permitted a concession by right under State Law regardless of whether the 17
City has an ordinance in place or not. The City’s Ordinance once it is adopted simply specifies which 18
options will be given priority so that they can be approved essentially administratively without further 19
approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. And if the applicant chooses from those preferred 20
menu of options they, there’s no further review. If the applicant wants additional concessions they do 21
need to show some type, some economic finding in front of this Commission and the City Council. 22
23
Commissioner King: So I’m, I may be missing this. So you’re saying that as the project sits now by State 24
law it’s within, this is within the entitlements regardless of what the City law is currently, this is within… 25
the State entitlements override ours? 26
27
Ms. Silver: Yes, that’s correct. The State Density Bonus Law in the area of requested concessions for 28
developing housing that is deed restricted by affordability provides that the applicant is entitled legally to 29
at least one concession as requested by the applicant if they deed restrict at least 10 percent of the units. 30
31
Commissioner King: Ok and that 1.06 FAR is the one item? 32
33
Ms. Silver: Yes, that’s the one item that the applicant has requested and therefore they are entitled to 34
that under State law. 35
36
Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. 37
38
Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Commissioner Tanaka. 39
40
Commissioner Tanaka: This is kind of going back to the purview question I was asking earlier. I wanted 41
to know if as part of our recommendation we can suggest whether a certain portion of units be office 42
versus residential? Is that within our purview at all? 43
44
Mr. Aknin: Clarify a little bit? 45
46
Commissioner Tanaka: Let’s say we thought that certain units shouldn’t be maybe, should be have office 47
use instead of residential or maybe have, could be either use. Is that within our purview to make a 48
recommendation towards? 49
50
Mr. Aknin: So in this case you would be recommending that something that’s residential right now 51
become office? 52
53
Commissioner Tanaka: Or perhaps be (interrupted) 54
55
Mr. Aknin: Swapped? 56
22
1
Commissioner Tanaka: Either use perhaps. 2
3
Mr. Aknin: Yeah, I mean that would be, I haven’t heard that one before. That would be a little bit 4
unusual. I don’t know if the nexus would be there or not. I would think you would probably have to 5
explain what about this project necessitates for that switch to happen. I mean it could always be 6
something that you recommend and something for the applicant to consider. I haven’t seen that applied 7
as a condition of approval before requesting the specific uses be something else. 8
9
Mr. Reich: It would also, Russ Reich, Senior Planner. It would also impact the parking calculation and so 10
it wouldn’t be very easy to switch from residential to office because the parking requirement would be 11
higher and the parking spaces wouldn’t be there. 12
13
Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, where this is coming from is I think while I understand the aesthetics and 14
the mechanics of the DEE and I fully respect that issue I think to me the biggest issue with this project is 15
really the parking and traffic considerations. But I think what’s really neat about this project is it’s truly 16
mixed-use and because it’s mixed-use you, it’s kind of like one my first earlier comments is that because 17
it’s mixed-use you don’t have the same kind of intensity. Maybe overall it’s the same intensity, but 18
because the uses are non-overlapping the traffic’s not as bad, the parking’s not as bad even though as a 19
whole maybe it looks from the straight addition but because there’s this kind of non-overlapping use 20
that’s kind of a neat aspect of it. But where I was just thinking of was on the second floor. Right now on 21
Acacia they have office on the other side. And on the Portage side, which is actually a much busier street 22
and it’s actually a lot busier traffic. I think one thing that would make this project perhaps more, would 23
perhaps lessen the traffic and parking impact in terms of this non-overlapping use of the structure would 24
be if let’s say the units facing Portage, which is actually a very busy street. It’s only second level. For 25
residential having a lot of traffic on there is not usually a good thing, but for office it actually is a good 26
thing would be perhaps somewhere all of those units on that second floor facing Portage be office. Or 27
perhaps be allowed to be residential or office. 28
29
Mr. Reich: You’re suggesting that they potentially switch the office with the residential in the current 30
design? 31
32
Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, exactly. 33
34
Mr. Reich: To make it more sensitive to the residential to be off the busy street. 35
36
Commissioner Tanaka: Not just that, but if there was perhaps more office use on the second level 37
instead of residential on the Portage side that also would I think contribute to a, more of the non-38
overlapping use of the parking and traffic that would be impacting the area. The other thing I was 39
thinking about it during our Cal Ave Concept Plan discussions we thought about having some sort of 40
incubator space in that area. If it could swing either way where it’s residential or office use on that 41
second floor perhaps that’s a way to make that happen. And even if, so let’s say I think there’s five units 42
right now facing Portage, which is a much busier street than Acacia on the other side, if that was let’s say 43
that switched to office or is mixed-use that would still, the project would still be over the allocation in the 44
Housing Element originally that we set before. 45
46
Chair Martinez: Commissioner I think I’m going to give Ms. Young her rebuttal time right now. Go ahead. 47
48
Ms. Young: Thank you. No rebuttal, but I may have something to help you. As you know, Palo Alto 49
allows for home office use. So anyone who lives in Palo Alto is entitled to have their home office there, 50
to work out of their home, them and their immediate spouse. So it’s a maximum of two person. And I 51
don’t know of any reason why the units that you’re proposing could not be used as a home office use, 52
again with that limit of the tenant and their spouse or partner. Does that help you in (interrupted) 53
54
Commissioner Tanaka: It does, I was just thinking about ways to lessen the impact of traffic and parking. 55
Because you, I think by the design of this project itself it’s actually kind of clever because it does 56
23
minimize it already because of the fact you don’t have, it’s not all residential, it’s not all office, it’s not all 1
one thing so you don’t have anyone colliding for parking or colliding for traffic, right? So already it’s kind 2
of neat. I was just thinking in this one area because I notice you put office on the other side on Acacia, 3
which is not that busy actually, but Portage is maybe two, three times the volume, I would imagine of 4
traffic you put residential against that. If I was the designer of this project, which I’m not and we’re not 5
here to design it, I would have had that office. But that’s certainly in your prerogative to do whatever 6
you feel is correct. That was just my recommendation. 7
8
Ms. Young: Thank you. 9
10
Chair Martinez: Ms. Young you are allowed your time for rebuttal if you choose to take it or to make your 11
final statement. 12
13
Ms. Young: Just thank you for your time and your consideration and if you do have follow up questions 14
please feel free to forward them to us or to staff and then they can forward them to us. Thank you. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Wait, there’s one question for you. Go ahead Commissioner King. 17
18
Commissioner King: One of the things I think is attractive about this or desirable is we’re looking at 19
studios and one bedrooms predominantly with the goal of minimizing, one of the benefits of minimizing 20
impacts on our schools. The loft units, those look like, how, and this may be regardless of whether in loft 21
format or square footage on the same floor it may have the same end result. But how likely are those to 22
be used as a second bedroom and therefore potentially impact, have kids that might impact the schools? 23
24
Ms. Young: Pretty minimal. Many of those units on the fourth floor that have lofts are true studio spaces 25
in the main space and so the little loft area is right at the size of an allowable room, which is 70 square 26
feet. And some of them are a little bit larger at 90 or 100 square feet, but the number of studios, one 27
bedrooms, and then the two bedroom is accurate from the list that you have. I don’t see we’re going to 28
get families of four or five moving into these units. It’s… 29
30
Commissioner King: Yeah, it may not be families; even just one kid. I think the ideal is we’re trying to 31
meet our housing requirements and get not add any more ideally zero net growth to the schools. 32
33
Ms. Young: Well to the point they’re designed for urban professionals. There is a very small pet friendly 34
park. There’s no playground. There’s no lawn, green space for, to support a childhood activity. The 35
ground floor with Equinox, the gym is intended to be symbiotic with that urban professional life as is the 36
intended restaurant. We’re actually hoping for parking and traffic that a lot of traffic trips are reduced or 37
eliminated because you’re able to walk downstairs or walk to the gym or walk to Mollie Stone’s or one of 38
the other local restaurants. So we’re actually hoping that the design of the project and the integration 39
with the local existing infrastructure will reduce traffic and increase pedestrian activity in many locations. 40
41
Commissioner King: Thank you. 42
43
Chair Martinez: Great, thanks. Ok. Let’s close the public hearing and Commissioners we need some 44
movement on a Motion. Anyone? Ok, Commissioner King. 45
46
MOTION 47
48
Commissioner King: There we go. I recommend that City Council approve the draft record of land use 49
action approving Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 per the agenda. 50
51
Chair Martinez: Is that sufficient Ms. City Attorney or do you want it to be more explicit as a Motion? 52
53
Ms. Silver: I assume that that incorporates the language in the recommendation on Page 1 of the staff 54
report. 55
56
24
Commissioner King: Correct. 1
2
SECOND 3
4
Chair Martinez: Ok. We have a legitimate Motion. Do I have a second? Motion by Commissioner King 5
and second by Commissioner Tanaka. Discussion? Really? Ok. Yes, Vice-Chair Michael. 6
7
Vice-Chair Michael: So when I saw the staff report on this project I was very intrigued about the true 8
mixed-use character. I also was interested that it is a project that seems to be very sensitive to the 9
Comprehensive Plan and important details to the what will be emerging in the California Avenue Concept 10
Plan, the El Camino Grand Boulevard, and perhaps that’s fitting for an architectural firm that includes 11
partners that have chaired the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission in the past and 12
have a deep understanding of the City’s objectives and ideals in this regard. So I’m also impressed that 13
the real mixed-used characteristic of the project seems to be excellent. The whole notion of having 14
commercial, retail, residential, a gym, a restaurant, proximity to transit, proximity to a vibrant California 15
Avenue, proximity to jobs all of this seems to be something that is important to the City as it goes 16
forward and I think that the concerns about traffic and parking are appropriate and inevitable. I think 17
that’s going to be a struggle on every single project that we see and I hope the community continues to 18
express their concerns which are legitimate and important. And with that I think this is the kind of 19
project that will enhance this block and El Camino and the California Avenue area and I think it’s an 20
excellent proposal. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Thank you. I asked staff to look at our newly adopted Housing Element and provide us 23
some excerpts from that that support this project. I’d like that to go into the record if you would please. 24
25
Mr. Aknin: We will and we will incorporate that into the reports as they go on to the Council. 26
27
Chair Martinez: No I think for if you haven’t had time to do that now I understand, but I wanted the 28
public to understand the sort of how the Housing Element is being supported through projects like that. 29
So if you’ve done it, please; if not I understand because this was a last minute request. 30
31
Mr. Aknin: Yeah we don’t have the policies in front of us know, but that’s something that we can put 32
together both post on our website and include in the report to Council. 33
34
Chair Martinez: Ok, I appreciate that. I also just want to add to what the Vice-Chair Michael has said. I 35
think we’re starting to get this right in terms of higher density housing along El Camino and in terms of 36
the kinds of mixed-uses and the kind of downtown and urban living that supports our workforce. So 37
along with other Commissioners I completely support the project. 38
39
So let’s call for the vote. All those in favor of the Motion signal, say aye (Aye). The Motion passes 40
unanimously with Commissioner Alcheck and Commissioner Keller absent. Thank you very much. We’re 41
going to take a 10 minute break. 42
43
MOTION PASSED (5-0-2, Commissioners Keller and Alcheck absent) 44
45
Commission Action: Commission approved staff recommendation for Site and Design Review and request 46
for concessions under Density Bonus law. Motion by Commissioner King, second by Commissioner Tanaka (5-47
0-2, Commissioner Keller and Commissioner Alcheck absent) 48
49
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
August 1, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Attachmenl :z:.
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
3159 EI Camino Real [13PLN-00040): Request by Heather Young of
Fergus Garber Young Architects on behalf of Portage Avenue Portfolio,
LLC for Site and Design Review of the proposal for the construction of a
new four story, 55 feet tall, approximately 74,122 square foot mixed Use
building on a 1.6 acre site, with commercial and office uses and 48
residential apartment units. The project also includes Design Enhancement
Exceptions (DEEs) for height and build to lines and a Conditional Use
Pennit. Zone District: Service Commercial (CS). Environmental
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the
project in accordance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and· Transportation Commission recommend that the Architectural Review
Board recommend that the City Council approve the draft Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A) approving:
(1) A Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA);
(2) The Site and Design Review application for a new 67,506 s.f. mixed-use building (added to an
existing 6,616 s.f. building) on a 1.6 acre site (resulting in a total 74,122 s.f. of floor area on a
69,503 s.f. site, and FAR of 1.06: 1) to provide 48 apartment units, including five Below Market
Rate (BMR) units, and office and retail uses, with structured parking facilities (at surface and
underground) providing 216 parking spaces (including 11 puzzle lifts for 196 cars),
(3) Density Bonus concession pennitting increased FAR for both residential and commercial
components of the project in the total amonnt of 4,619 square feet; and
(4) A Conditional Use Pennit (to allow 16,118 sq: ft. of office space on one parcel where the limit
isS,OOO s.f.) (Reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission on July 10,2013).
(5) DEEs for five feet of additional height and alleviation of the build to line by two and a half
feet.
File Number 13PLN-0004Q Page 1 of8
//
BACKGROUND
Process Historv
On July 10, 2013 the project was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission) for formal review and recommendation to the City Council. There were four
public speakers. Two speakers voiced concerns over traffic and parking while the other two
speakers spoke in favor of the project noting the benefits of higher density housing. The
Commission voted 5-0-2-0 to approve the project and discussed the following items:
• Parking lifts;
• Parking requirements;
• DEE for height;
• State density bonus law.
The Commission was supportive of the project and commented that it was real mixed use and
good urban design. The Commission agreed that the project implements the policies of the
Comprehensive plan. There were questions about the parking lifts. They asked ifthey are able to
charge electric vehicles, how much power the lifts used to operate, and if people would opt to use
the other open parking spaces rather than their own dedicated space within the parking lift. The
Commission expressed the desire for projects to be fully parked per the City's parking .code
despite the reductions permitted by the State when providing BMR units in a project. Much of the
discussion was related to the requested DEE for height. Many agreed that the additional five feet
in height, associated with the loft spaces, was an appropriate use of the DEE resulting in a more
unified roof element that was no taller than the roof screens alone would have been. Due to the
fact that habitable space would result within the loft spaces, one Commissioner believed that the
DEE process was not the appropriate process for the height exception. The State Density Bonus
Law was also discussed. The Commission asked if the City was compelled to accept the BMR
units and the associated concessions that go along with them or if the City could refuse the BMRs
and eliminate the concessions.
Site Location .
The project site, located south of Page Mill Road on State Route 82 (EI Camino Real), is bounded
by Portage Avenue to the southeast and Acacia A venue. to the northwest, and the developed site at
435 Acacia Avenue (Equinox Gym building). The. site includes the 6,616 s.f. Equinox Gym annex
at 3127 EI Camino Real, the 900 s.f. "We Fix Macs" building at 3159 EI Camino Real, the
parking structure at 440 Portage and two surface parking lots. The lot located at the northwest
comer of the site has II parking spaces, and the parking lot at the southwest comer of the site
(near the EI Camino Real and Portage Avenue intersection) has 44 parking spaces (on two
separate parcels). The site has five curb cuts onto public rights of way: two curb cuts on Portage
Avenue, one curb cut on the EI Camino Real, and two curb cuts on Acacia Avenue. To the north
of Acacia Street is surface parking lot, across El Camino Real to the west are restaurants
(McDonalds and Fish Market), across Portage Street to the south is a retail use (Footlocker) and
office buildings, and across the alley to the east is a retail use (Fry's Electronics).
The 1.6 acre project site (69,503 square feet) consists of four parcels to be merged under a
separate application (preliminary parcel map process). The parcel is zoned CS (Service
File Number \3PLN·00040 Page 2 of8
i I· ,) (j , I ,
Commercial) and is regulated by requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter
18.16. Mixed-use is a permitted land use in the CS zone district. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for this site is also Service Commercial, which allows for facilities providing cltywide
and regional services and relies on customers arriving by car. Residential and mixed use projects
may be appropriate in this land use category.
Project Description
The proposed project is 67,506 s.f. mixed use building which, when combined with the existing
6,616 s.f. Equinox gym annex located on the site, would result floor area to a total of 74,122 s.f ..
The maximum height would be 55 feet above grade to allow for loft space in the fourth floor
residential units, as well as to screen mechanical. equipment. At the ground floor level,
retail/restaurant/commercial recreation space is proposed, and the building setback on El Camino
Real would allow an effective 12 foot sidewalk width. A total of 48 residential apartment units
would be provided on four of the floors (second, third, fourth, and partial fifth floors). The
proposed loft spaces, accessible internally from fourth floor residenti!\1 units, would have floors
below the ceiling level ofthe fourth floor units. Office space would be provided on portions of the
first, second, and third floors. Third and fourth floors are proposed above a portion of the existing
Equinox building at 3127 El Camino Real. The first and second floors would be separated across
the site by the existing Equinox building walls and by a courtyard proposed between the gym and
the new restaurant/retail space. The third and fourth floors across the site are mostly physically
separated (using expansion joints) except for limited hallway access, but would be visually
connected.
The building is proposed to have a wide variety of colors, finish materials, and textures. These
. include board formed concrete, zinc shingles, precast concrete panels, stucco plaster, cement
composite panels, wood composite panels, mate terra cotta rain screen panels, and grooved terra
cotta rain screen panels. In addition there are metal sunscreens, terra cotta sunscreens, steel and
aluminum windows, and painted steel guardrails.
The project includes surface and one level of underground parking facilities (13 feet below grade)
for 216 parking spaces, including II puzzle parking lifts. The building would be constructed to
displace one surface parking lot and reduce the size and cover another surface parking lot on the
site. The subterranean garage would connect to the existing below grade garage on Portage
Avenue (that serves tenants of 411-435 Acacia Avenue) at the south east comer of the site. The
main, finished garage floor level would be located below the existing site grades, and three level
car stackers would be installed in the garage. The lifts would extend approximately six to seven
feet below the main garage floor. Vehicular access to the site would be provided exclusively on
Portage Avenue via two curb cuts; all other existing curb cuts (on EI Camino Real and Acacia
Avenue) would be removed. The parking spaces would be provided in both the existing tWo-level
garage on Portage A venue, and in the new underground garage that would be accessed from a
below grade connection to the existing Portage Avenue garage. Fifteen (15) surface-level visitor
parking spaces are proposed beneath the residential wing ofthe proposed building.
Site improvements such as landscaping, walkways, courtyards, and an outdoor dining terrace are
also included in the proposed project. The portico feature at the center of the project on EI
File Number 13PLN·00040 Page 3 of8
Camino Real leads into a large courtyard area located in the center of the project, allowing
pedestrian movement through the project and through to the Equinox main entrance behind the
project and access to the surface level parking area at Portage Avenue. The courtyard area also
provides access to the elevator and stair core that provides access to the offices and residential .
units above. The courtyard has a series of triangular shaped planters with Japanese maples and
accent stones in gravel mulch. Some of the planters have cantilevered benches for seating and
decorative screen walls that would be up lit at night. There is also a water feature with three
bubbling fountains. A specimen ginkgo tree would be placed at the end of the courtyard close to
the main equinox entry. Due to the. fact that the entire project would sit above a parking Structure,
landscape opportunities are somewhat limited. In addition to the courtyard plantings the proposal
does include some cast in place concrete planters as well as potted plants in various locations
around the site. There would also be three new street trees on Acacia A venue and one new street
tree on Portage Avenue. The existing street trees around the perimeter of the project would
remain.
The proposal also includes five below market rate residential apartment units (10% of the total
units), allowing a concession for greater floor area than the maximum allowable area, as well as
fewer parking spaces than would otherwise be required.
Two DEEs are requested which are within the purview of the ARB. One DEE is a request for the
height of the residential loft spaces to exceed the 50 foot height limit by five additional feet. The
second DEE requests a relaxation from the build-to requirement along the Portage Avenue
frontage, resulting in a greater setback of seven feet six inches rather than a five foot setback. The
DEEs are discussed in greater detail in the discussion section below.
DISCUSSION
Concessions for FAR
Five of the proposed 48 rental apartment units will be provided as below market rate units. This
is 10% of the total number of units. The floor area allowance in the CS zone district is 1: 1 or
69,503 square feet for this site. The maximum nonresidential floor area is 0.4:1 of the site or
27,801 sq.ft., where the proposed nonresidential floor area is 31,262 sq. ft. (3,460 sq.ft. over the
0.4:1 nonresidential FAR). Of the nonresidential floor area, .15:1 FAR or 10,425 sq. ft. of floor
area must be ground floor commercial area; the project includes 17,073 s.f. of ground floor
commercial area, meeting the minimum standard. The maximum residential floor area is 0.6: 1 or
41,701 sq. ft. where 42,860 sq.ft. is proposed (1,158 sq.ft. over the 0.6:1 residential FAR).
To assist in providing the proposed BMR units, the applicant has proposed to exceed the
allowable 1:1 FAR (69,503 sq.ft. of floor area) by 4,619 squarefeet for a total floor area of74,122
square feet. State density bonus law allows for concessions when at least 10% of the housing
units proposed are affordable units. The requested concession is an FAR of .06: lover the
maximum allowable 1: 1 FAR. The housing component of this project is a good example of the
type of housing development envisioned by the new Housing Element. The sites were located on
the City's inventory. The project combines smaller sized parcels to maximize density. The small
units are designed to appeal to an urban commuter and they are located close to transit. The
File Number I3PLN-00040 Page 4 of8
requested concession is also consistent with the Density Bonus recently recommended by the
Commission.
Parking Reductions
The total number of parking spaces that would generally be required for the project based on the
city's zoning requirements is 247 parking spaces. State density bonus law (Government code
Section 65915, also formerly known as SB 1818) provides the ability to use a lower number of
parking spaces when a project provides a minimum of! 0% BMR units in a project. The State law
allows for a 31 space reduction in the number of parking spaces required in the project. While the
project would provide 31 spaces fewer than the City's parking code requires, with the state
incentives for parking reductions, the project will be otherwise zoning compliant for required
parking. A breakdown of the parking regulations is provided in the zoning compliance table
attachment C.
DEE for Height
The height limit for the CS zone is 50 feet. The applicant has proposed a DEE to exceed the 50
foot height limit by 5 feet, for a total height of 55 feet. This is requested so the height of the
mechanical roof screens and the loft roofs could be integrated into one single cohesive roof
element, rather than multiple roof screens randomly scattered across the top of the building. The
draft DEE findings are provided in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
DEE for Build to Line
The CS zone district requires that 33% of the building be built up to the-setback on the side streets
(Acacia and Portage Avenues), and that 50% of the main building frontage (El Camino Real) be at
the setback line of zero to ten feet to create a 12 foot effective sidewalk with (curb to building
face). On the 150 foot long Acacia Avenue frontage, 39% or 59' of the building wall is proposed
to be placed at the five foot setback, therefore the requirement is met. On the 458 foot long
Portage Avenue frontage, the length of the building wall is approximately 149 feet long. To meet
the 33% build to setback requirement, at least 49 linear feet of the building wall would need to be
built up to the five foot required setback. To accommodate the extension of the residential
balconies and the accessible ramp up to the elevated plaza, the building would be built with a
minimum seven foot six inch setback, rather than up to the required five foot setback. This would
be two and one half feet further back form the street than is required by the code for 33% of the
wall length. This would result in a greater setback than the build to requirement allows,
necessitating a DEE request. While the building wall is further from the setback than required,
the residential balconies at the second, third, and fourth floors would extend out forward 11 inches
beyond the property line.
Site and Design Review
The Site and Design Review combining district is intended to provide a process for review and
approval of development . in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including
established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise,
increased traffic, or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be
harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and
ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The property
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 5 of8
is not located within an ecologically sensitive area or within a Site and Design combining district.
The code, however, does require that mixed use projects providing more than four residential
dwelling units are subject to Site and Design Review. Because the application includes 48
resid~ntial units, it is therefore subject to Site and Design Review which requires review by the
Commission, the ARB and the City Council. The Commission and ARB will forward their
recommendation to City Council for final approval of the proposed mixed use project. Since the
CUP and the DEE's are part of the project proposal the final Council action will include these
project elements as well. The Site and Design review findings are provided within the RLUA
(Attachment A).
Conditional Use Permit
The CS zoning limits office uses to no more than 5,000 square feet per parcel. The zoning also
contains a provision that allows the parcel to exceed the 5,000 sJ. office limit with a Conditional
Use Permit. The limit is ultimately established by the Director. Since the four parcels will be
combined into one parcel a Conditional Use permit to exceed the 5,000 s.f. limit of office space
per parcel is included as part of the application. The total amount of office space proposed within
the project is 16,118 square feet. This is only 21.7% of the total floor area within the project. The
amount of office square footage is similar to the amount of retail floor area, providing a balance
between the two uses while being considerably less than the proposed residential floor area
proposed within the project. The CUP findings are provided within the RLUA (Attachment A).
Bike Parking
The plans provided in this packet include a bulb out area at the El Camino Real frontage to
provide additional bike parking spaces. El Camino Real is a State Highway and the California
Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) has ultimate authority over modifications to the El
Camino Real public right-of-way. Transportation staff does not believe that Cal Trans will be
supportive of the bulb out element into the roadway and has directed the applicant to find
alternative locations for the bike parking. The applicant has stated that the plans will be revised to
eliminate the bulb out element and also provide the required bike parking at grade and in secured
bike cages in the below grade garage.
El Camino Real Development
Three guidelines are applicable to this site: (1) El Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR
Guidelines), (2) South EI Camino Real Guidelines, recommended by ARB in 2002 (South ECR
Guidelines), and (3) El Camino RealMaster Schematic Design Plan, 2003 Draft (Design Plan).
South ECR Guidelines: The project site is located within the Cal Ventura Area, a corridor area, as
defined by the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines indicate
new buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades and entries should face EI
Camino Real or clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians.
• Guideline 3.1.2 states "the design of the sidewalk setback should create an urban character'" ,
the buildings would be set back fromEi Camino Real to provide a 12 foot wide effective sidewalk
width (curb face to building, required by Zoning Code Section 18.16.060). A raised outdoor
dining terrace is proposed, beginning at the 12 foot setback, facing El Camino Real at the corner
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 6 of8
of Portage Avenue. The building would be setback an additional 24 feet from the 12 foot setback
creating an open plaza at the comer.
• Guideline 3.1.8 notes "new buildings should relate to and compliment surrounding buildings
and street frontages" and. "projects should relate to adjacent buildings with complimentary
building orientations and compatible landscaping." No landscape plans have been submitted to
date, but will be required for the Architectural Review Board hearing of the project. The proposed
design would meet Guideline 4.1.6, which states, "buildings facing EI Camino Real should be
oriented parallel to the ECR right of way to create a cohesive well~defined street." Two entries
would be facing EI Camino Real.
The proposed project would cover an entire EI Camino Real frontage block. Contextual
streetscape views beyond the block were provided to allow for comparison of the project height
and scale with development along the same side of EI Camino Real, mostly one-story buildings.
The ARB would also evaluate the project pursuant to Guidelines 4.3.6, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5, which are:
• Guideline 4.3.6: "All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of
care and integrity" and "Buildings should be attractive and visually engaging from all sides, unless
in a zero lot-line condition."
• Guideline 4.5.4 and 4.5.5: "rooflines and roof shapes should be consistent with the design and
structure of the building itself as well as with roof lines 'of adjacent buildings" and "roof forms
should reflect the fayade articulation and building massing, as opposed to a single-mass roof over
an articulated fayade."
ECR Guidelines: The 1979 ECR guidelines are somewhat helpful with respect to street trees . ,
signage, architecture and building colors,
• Trees: ECR guidelines call for street tree spacing every 25 feet (page 2, top) or 30 feet (page 2,
bottom); whereas the Design Plan calls for London Plane street trees in this segment ofEI Camino
Real, plantM every 22 to 33 feet on center in 4' x 6' tree wells, and prunes to provide 14 feet of
clearance below to allow for truck and bus traffic, The five existing London Plane trees on EI
Camino Real are shown as to be retained; three new street trees are proposed along Acacia, and
one street tree is proposed on Portage to supplement the existing Ash street tree, The Landscape
Plan to be prepared for ARB review would provide further detail as to plantings and proposed tree
species,
• Signage: There are a few relevant statements, such as -"Signs on ECR are limited to Y, to 2/3
the maximum size permitted by the sign ordinance"; "Wall signs should appear as though the
building and the sign were designed together, The sign should not appear as if it were attached as
an afterthought"; "A place for a sign should be designed into the elevation (if a sign is needed)";
. and "Three signs, one on each elevation, are usually not approved," The project plans indicate one
location for signage, at the intersection of EI Camino Real and Portage, a low wall sign, Further
detail would be required for the staff and ARB review of signage placement.
File Number 13PLN-00040
• Architecture: "In neighborhood commercial zones, the design should be pedestrian oriented;
signs and details should not be primarily auto-oriented." Also, "when possible buildings should
be set back from the front property line, with landscaping or a people-oriented plaza in front." The
project provides for planter landscaping, new street trees where none currently exist, and some
pedestrian oriented signage. An outdoor dining terrace, facingEI Camino Real, with trelliage, is
also proposed to activate the EI Camino Real elevation.
• Colors: "More than three colors on a structure will make it incompatible with the surroundings.
U sing bright colors, such as reds, yellows, purples and greens as the predominant color on a
structure may make it incompatible with the surroundings. The ARB usually feels these colors are
used to attract attention." Colors and materials board would be provided for the ARB review.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project and the 30
day public review and comment period began on May 31,2013 and ended on July 1,2013. The
enviromnental analysis notes there are a few potentially significant impacts that would require
mitigation measures to reduce them to a less than significant level. These include mitigations for
dust control during excavation, protection for nesting birds, building design for earthquake
resistance, basement shoring, a Health and Safety Plan for construction workers, a Remedial Risk
Management Plan, collection of additional soil samples, installation of a vapor barrier, vapor
collection, and venting system, third party inspection of vapor barrier and venting system, a
Groundwater Mitigation Plan, development of a Groundwater Extraction design, technical
documents uploaded to the appropriate agencies, and the evaluation and implementation of signal
cycle length optimization and reallocation of the green time.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Site Location Map
C. Zoning Compliance Table
D. Comprehensive Compliance Plan Table
E. 'Applicant's Project Description Letter*
F. Previous Staff Report, Planning and Transportation Commission, July 20, 2013
O. Planning and Transportation Commission minutes, July 10,2013,
H. Public Correspondence
I. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
J. Plans (ARB Members only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES
Heather Young, applicant
Portage A venue Portfolio, owner
Prepared By: Russ Reich, Senior Planner ~ g;;:r'
Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Officialw
File Number 13PLN·00040 Page 8 ofS
(,' .
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
2
Thursday, August 1, 2013 3
REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5
250 Hamilton Avenue 6
Palo Alto, CA 94301 7
ROLL CALL: 8
Board members: Staff Liaison: 9
Clare Malone Prichard (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner 10
Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) 11
Alexander Lew Staff: 12
Randy Popp Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 13
Naseem Alizadeh Amy French, Chief Planning Official 14
Clare Campbell, Planner 15
Jason Nortz, Senior Planner 16
Elena Lee, Senior Planner 17
18
19
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 20
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: 21
Announce agenda item 22
Open public hearing 23
Staff recommendation 24
Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. 25
Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) 26
minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. 27
Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments 28
Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes 29
Close public hearing 30
Motions/recommendations by the Board 31
Final vote 32
33
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the 34
agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must 35
complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural 36
Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. 37
38
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 39
None. 40
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA
City of Palo Alto Page 2
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional 1
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. 2
3
CONSENT CALENDAR. 4
5
1. 211 Quarry Road [12PLN-00350]: Request by Rachel de Guzman, on behalf of the 6
Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University, for Architectural Review, with Sign 7
Exceptions, of two directional signs, one monument sign and one projecting wall sign 8
for the Hoover Pavilion medical building at the Stanford Medical Center. Zone District: 9
Hospital District (HD). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of 10
CEQA, 15301 (Existing Facilities) upon the determination that the project complies with 11
the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation. 12
13
2. 215 Quarry Road [13PLN-00202]: Request by Rachel de Guzman, on behalf of the 14
Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University, for Architectural Review, with Sign 15
Exceptions, for two projecting wall signs for a parking garage at the Stanford Medical 16
Center. Zone District: Hospital District (HD). Environmental Assessment: Exempt 17
from the provisions of CEQA, 15301 (Existing Facilities). 18
19
CONTINUED BUSINESS. 20
21
Major Reviews: 22
23
3. 405 Curtner Avenue [13PLN-00098]: Request by Salvatore Caruso on behalf of Zhen Zhen Li 24
for Architectural Review of a new 7,425 sq. ft., three-story building with six residential 25
condominium units on a vacant, 12,375 sq. ft. site. Zone District: Residential Multiple-Family 26
(RM-30). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California 27
Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. 28
29
4. 711 El Camino Real [13PLN-00017]: Request by HKS on behalf of Pacific Hotel 30
Management LLC for Architectural Review of the demolition of a 3,200 31
sq.ft. commercial building and construction of a new 4-story, 22,957 sq.ft. hotel with 32
23 guest units, including one level partially submerged parking facility, on a 0.26 acre site. 33
Zone District: Service Commercial (CS). Environmental Assessment: A draft Initial Study and 34
Negative Declaration have been prepared and the public comment period is April 26, 2013 to 35
May 26, 2013. 36
37
NEW BUSINESS. 38
39
Major Reviews: 40
41
5. 611 Cowper Street [13PLN-00259]: Request by Ken Hayes of The Hayes Group for 42
Architectural Review to allow the demolition of two buildings (2,208 sq.ft. plus 6,053 sq.ft.) 43
and construction of a new 34,703 sq.ft., four-story, mixed used building (three floors 44
commercial and one floor residential) with below grade parking facilities on a 13,992 sq.ft. site. 45
Zone District: Downtown Commercial Community with Pedestrian Combining District (CD-46
C(P)). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California 47
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
6. 3159 El Camino Real [13PLN-00040]: Request by FGY Architects on behalf of Portage 2
Avenue Portfolio, LLC for Site and Design Review of the demolition of x sq.ft. a new 74,122 3
square foot four-story mixed use project with 48 residential units. The proposal also includes 4
Design Enhancement Exceptions for height, and build to lines as well as a Conditional Use 5
Permit for the parcel to exceed the 5,000 square foot limit for office space. Environmental 6
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the 7
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zone district: Service Commercial (CS). 8
9
Acting Chair Lippert: 3159 El Camino Real, request by Heather Young of Fergus Garber Young (FGY) 10
Architects on behalf of Portage Avenue Portfolio, LLC for site and design review of the proposed for 11
construction of a new four story 55 feet tall approximately 74,122 square foot mixed-use building on a 12
1.6 acre site with commercial and office uses and 48 residential apartment units. The project also 13
includes Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) for height and building to lines and a Conditional Use 14
Permit (CUP). The zone district Service Commercial (CS). Environmental assessment: a Mitigated 15
Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California 16
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Would, Russ would you like to introduce the project? 17
18
Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Sure, good morning. Thank you Vice-Chair Lippert and Board Members. 19
The application before you this morning is a site and design review application with multiple 20
components including two Design Enhancement Exceptions and a Conditional Use Permit. The 21
proposal includes the combination of four parcels into a single parcel for the construction of a new 22
mixed-use project that would be four stories and 55 feet tall. It would have a total of approximately 23
74,122 square feet of floor area and would provide 118 new parking spaces in a new below grade 24
parking structure with 196 of those spaces contained within parking machines. The proposed uses 25
include retail, restaurant, and commercial recreation at the first floor. The first floor across the El 26
Camino frontage has a two story head height. Office space would be provided to the third floor and 48 27
rental residential units would be located on the second, third, and fourth floors of the building. 28
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
The new project would span the block along El Camino Real between Portage and Acacia Avenues. 2
The We Fix Macs store would be removed and the existing Equinox annex at El Camino would be 3
retained. The new project would be built over and under the existing building. The large parking 4
structure at Portage Avenue would be incorporated into the project with access for the new below grade 5
parking coming through that existing parking structure below grade. All existing curb cuts would be 6
eliminated along El Camino and Acacia with surface parking access coming from Portage Avenue. 7
The elimination of these curb cuts would improve pedestrian safety along El Camino. 8
9
The project implements the City’s goals and policies related to encouraging pedestrian friendly mixed-10
use in this area. The project provides wide sidewalks, a raised dining terrace, and large portico with 11
access to an open courtyard at the interior of the project. This courtyard provides access through the 12
project and provides landscape and pedestrian amenities including trees, seating and lighting, and a 13
water feature. 14
15
The proposal was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on July 10th. They 16
discussed a few different things concentrating on parking lifts in the project, parking requirements as a 17
result of State Density Bonus law allowing for reductions in parking. They discussed the process the 18
use of the DEE for the height exception and the State Density Bonus law in terms of whether or not the 19
City had to accept the concessions that are proposed as a result of doing Below Market Rate (BMR) 20
units. There were four public speakers at the hearing. Two of the speakers concentrated their concerns 21
over parking and traffic. The other two speakers spoke in favor of the project citing the project looked 22
good and mixed-use in that area was supported. The Planning Commission recommended a unanimous 23
City of Palo Alto Page 5
approval of the project. The DEE included one for a five foot in additional height and the others for 1
alleviation of the build to lines on Portage Avenue by 2.5 feet. 2
3
The DEE for height is requested because in the code you can go 15 feet above the 50 foot height limit 4
for mechanical screens and like an elevator enclosure. And so the thinking behind this height exception 5
was that there’s all this mechanical equipment on the roof that would have various different mechanical 6
screens and with the ability to get the exception for height for these popped up loft spaces it gives them 7
the opportunity to kind of unify that screen and these loft spaces into one single design element. 8
Instead of having some kind of metal roof screen or something it actually has a nice unified surface 9
without these multiple pop ups on the roof so that’s kind of the thinking behind the Design 10
Enhancement Exception for that. And then on the build to lines there’s been a lot of discussion about 11
actually moving buildings back further from the sidewalk and in this case to incorporate a ramp that 12
goes up to the elevated dining terrace the building is moved back two and a half feet further than the 13
five foot required build to line resulting in seven and a half feet back rather than five feet back so it’s 14
pretty minor. 15
16
At places you’ve been provided with some new images to show an alternative material for the two stair 17
towers on the Portage side and the Acacia side. In the original package it shows a zinc shingle and then 18
the at places items I believe it shows an alternative for a zinc panel and it compares the look of the two 19
different materials. Also at places I believe there was a letter of support for the project that came in 20
after the packet, so that’s there for you as well. So the applicant’s here to make a brief presentation and 21
staff and the applicant are here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Acting Chair Lippert: Thank you Russ. And before we get started here are there any disclosures that 1
Board Members need to make? 2
3
Board Member Lew: I will disclose that I met with the applicant on Monday for an hour to review the 4
drawings. 5
6
Board Member Popp: The same. 7
8
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok, with that Ms. Young you have 10 minutes. 9
10
Heather Young, FGY Architects: Good morning, good morning Board Members. I’m Heather Young 11
from Fergus Garber Young Architects here to represent the project team. We also have Guzzardo 12
Partners Landscape Architects to answer questions. I think Russ did a great job with an overview of 13
the project scope. It is a mixed-use project on a fairly complicated site. And if you look at it, I’m sure 14
you’re all familiar with the Fry’s site between El Camino and Alma south of Oregon. This is our site, 15
which is bounded by El Camino, Portage, and Acacia. As Russ indicated, four parcels are being joined 16
to create this larger L shaped site and the proposal is to take the existing surface and below grade 17
parking lot, the existing one story concrete tilt up structure and incorporate those in a new design that 18
has a below grade garage connecting to the existing garage and new above grade construction between 19
the existing structure and Portage, the existing structure and Acacia, and across the top. 20
21
And you can see here the site conditions. North is approximately in this orientation; El Camino, a 22
primary traffic source. We’ve removed two curb cuts along Acacia, two curb cuts along El Camino, 23
and one curb cut along Portage. There’s a small surface parking lot under the building here. The 24
City of Palo Alto Page 7
primary surface parking lot existing and the primary entrance to the below grade garage will be 1
maintained. You’re also seeing a new pedestrian connection between El Camino, a new central 2
courtyard, and a lower Equinox parking lot. 3
4
There’s a great deal of pedestrian activity on this site. With the existing concrete structure of the 5
Equinox expansion here we felt that squaring off the corner at Acacia and holding that edge made a 6
great deal of sense, but opening up a pedestrian connection mid-block, creating a pedestrian dining 7
arcade, and a pedestrian dining terrace to emphasize the Portage corner and provide some additional 8
pedestrian activity along the street made a good deal of sense. Primary building entrances are off of El 9
Camino, off of the dining arcade, off of the dining terrace. There’s also a pedestrian entrance to the 10
restaurant off of the rear parking lot. 11
12
If you look quickly at the existing site to get a sense of how the mixed-use massing is developed 13
ground floor has retail, restaurant, retail or commercial recreation, office, and building support on the 14
ground floor or double height space. This is second floor residential, second floor commercial office, 15
building mechanical. Third floor has commercial office space focused along the El Camino frontage 16
with residential along Acacia and Portage. Fourth floor is all residential with large setback terraces 17
along El Camino and you’re also seeing the mass of the mechanical roof screen in which some of the 18
lofts would be included. And here you can see that same view with the image beneath. You’re seeing 19
exterior residential terraces; these smaller squares are the pop up lofts that are part of the residential 20
units and again the three primary stair towers. 21
22
If we look at it from the Acacia corner again the We Fix Macs and the Showcase Luxury Car structures 23
that will be removed, the double height commercial recreation or retail, the single height office, the 24
City of Palo Alto Page 8
double height restaurant, the double height retail, the second floor office, the second floor residential, 1
the third floor commercial office, and again you’re seeing more setbacks to create a small exterior 2
terrace onto El Camino, the residential units, and then again the fourth floor residential units. And 3
you’re seeing the composed roof screen. 4
5
We would like to mention that one of the Comprehensive Plan directives is to find ways to bring more 6
residential units in creative manners to our projects. And we think that this directly supports that 7
Comprehensive Plan directive because the mass of the roof screen is there and you can see also that the 8
loft units along El Camino are setback I think it’s something like 38 feet from the frontage. They’re 9
hardly perceptible. And again you’re seeing the development of the exterior terraces along El Camino 10
to help invigorate the life and the pedestrian activity and you’re also seeing the terraces and balconies 11
that are part of the residential units. 12
13
There’s a lot going on here on the project. There is no back door and we’ve taken a lot of pain to 14
develop all of the façades with a great deal of care. And we have a short video that’s a fly through that 15
I just have to push the little button, oops. Excuse me. Ok. I think it missed a little bit of it, but you can 16
see going through the courtyard pulling back to see the main central stair tower in the courtyard, the 17
balconies in the residential units, the rear stair tower, the balconies in the residential units along 18
Portage, the corner double height retail space with the commercial space above, the double height 19
restaurant space with its dining arcade and commercial office above, the existing Equinox, the new 20
commercial recreation retail space, again residential and the small commercial office space at the end. 21
22
So materials, we have a lot of surface area for 74,000 square feet, but we’ve tried to have three wall 23
types: either cast concrete, steel and glass glazing or a rain screen wall system. The rain screen wall 24
City of Palo Alto Page 9
system, excuse me, is what’s primarily used in the residential areas and the commercial office areas. 1
The ground floor is predominantly the cast concrete, cast in place concrete, board form, and a large 2
quantity of glass window wall that’s a custom steel and glass window wall system. The materials for 3
the rain screen wall systems are the wood composite panels, which are on the board. It’s a terra cotta 4
panel rain screen or, excuse me, or a cement fiberboard, but it’s all a rain screen system. We tried to 5
work with the coolness of the concrete as a very natural color and to bring the warmth in the wood 6
panels of the residential units and also the warmth of the terra cotta panels, but maintaining some of the 7
coolness with the gray tones of the fiber cement panels and the terra cotta panels. The zinc panels as 8
you can see on the color board, it’s not shiny at all. It’s more of a dull, warm metal and we really loved 9
the way that light fell across it and was sort of eaten by the metal panels. 10
11
So if you take a look at this image we have some renderings that this is coming out extremely yellow 12
and I apologize. The colors as you see in my hand and on the renderings on the wall I think are a much 13
better representation, but you can see the natural palate with the concrete, the steel and glass, and then 14
we bring the terra cotta in the warmer tones on the third floor and a cooler tone on the fourth floor. 15
And the idea with the fourth floor is that its darker, it’s receding both in setback and in color to help 16
break the mass down. The interesting thing I think you’ll notice about the terra cotta on this façade is 17
it’s actually one color with two different textures, a matte texture and a ribbed texture. And by doing 18
the same color, oh, sorry… can I? I’ll be very quick. By using the same color with two different 19
textures there’ll be a life to that material during the day whether it’s in full sun with the angle of the 20
sun, whether it’s in shade so that you’ll get a relief from a large blank wall and have some lovely 21
textural differentiation. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 10
The remaining images are it’s a similar thing where you’re just taking the interior of the courtyard and 1
showing how that would look with the wood panels on the residential units and the stair tower and the 2
steel and glass. The Portage façade, which actually was a request that we got during our meeting on 3
Monday to show more of what the Portage elevation was looking like, so you’re seeing the wood 4
panels on the second and third floor, the fiber cement panels on the fourth floor, and the zinc panels on 5
the stair tower. These elements at the edge is a precast concrete element, which is another concrete 6
natural to tie this together. And then again on Acacia with the poured in place concrete, the gray and 7
the brown terra cotta, the wood panels, and the tower. And we have some additional information on the 8
loft and some additional perspectives if that would be helpful. And again Guzzardo is here to talk 9
about landscape design. Thank you very much. 10
11
Acting Chair Lippert: And I’ll give Guzzardo three minutes to talk about the landscape plan. 12
13
Gary Lehman, The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc.: Thank you, great to be here with you today. One of the 14
things that we find really exciting about this project is the spaces that we’re allowed to have developed 15
into more pedestrian oriented activities here particularly on the El Camino frontage. We’re very 16
excited about both this patio area that we have at the corner, which we’ll be able to furnish with tables 17
and chairs and it’ll be a nice warm corner. It’ll be elevated slightly relative to the El Camino 18
streetscape level, so it’ll provide a nice social relationship there between people using the dining area 19
and people walking on El Camino. Likewise along this area here we have sort of a bar arrangement 20
here where people can go into the restaurant, come out and dine here and again sort of participate in 21
that streetscape. It’s a very urban kind of experience. Obviously El Camino is a very active street, but 22
we’re looking to sort of introduce more and more population to that street and help in the whole 23
transitions happening along this portion of El Camino to make it a more pedestrian oriented friendly 24
City of Palo Alto Page 11
environment and we think both the use of plantings as well as furnishing there will really help to make 1
that nice. 2
3
The other space that’s really significant is in the interior the courtyard space here sort of draws you in 4
from El Camino into this space here. You can see the building overhang is kind of shaded in this 5
environment here so you can get a sense where the building edge relative to the open sky area is. So 6
this is sort of the sunny spot here and that’s where we’ve located the water feature. We have seating 7
elements all through this area, new planters which will be cast in place concrete also the board form 8
concrete material that Heather was talking about for the building. We’ll bring that into these built in 9
place planters, which will serve as storm water treatment areas, but we’ve also incorporated the warm 10
epay wood treatment for benches, which will be mounted onto those planter walls and I’ll show you the 11
detail for that in a moment. 12
13
We’ve taken this pavement pattern and kind of laid it as a carpet underneath the entire development, so 14
just as this development is very complicated in all of its layering and everything we kind of saw the 15
ground plane as an opportunity to create a carpet and have the building sort of set onto it. And we took 16
this angled approach because we wanted to create a little bit of energy with that albeit we wanted it to 17
be kind of soft so we’ve used paving materials which are fairly neutral in coloration. This is the 18
interlocking paving stone that would be on the plaza level itself with the banding and the field paving. 19
We think that will be complimentary to the building keeping the colors kind of light because there is a 20
lot of shade here and we wanted to keep that light and warm and activated. 21
22
Acting Chair Lippert: Can you wrap it up? 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Mr. Lehman: I can wrap up, thank you. So on the symmetry board this gives you a sense of the 1
planters, excuse me, wood benches that we’re using with the board form concrete. We think that will 2
be kind of a fun element picking up with the diagonal paving textures. We’ve introduced some metal 3
screens to create some partitions and some spatial interest within the spaces and a nice array of plant 4
materials within the planters themselves. We’ve also incorporated some vertical stone elements, which 5
occur both underneath the building overhang and out in the landscape area to give some anchoring to it, 6
some structural qualities to all the spanning that’s occurring and that’s part of our integration of some 7
feng shui concepts into the development of the site. So thank you very much. 8
9
Acting Chair Lippert: Thank you. I’m sure we’ll have lots of questions for you. Now’s the time for 10
members of the public to speak to this item; I will open the public hearing. I have one speaker card, 11
Robert Moss, and if there’s anyone else who wishes to speak to this item this is the time to hand in a 12
speaker card. You’ll have three minutes Mr. Moss. 13
14
Robert Moss: Thank you. I have several problems with the design of the building. As you know the 15
City Council has raised concerns about buildings which have gone up along El Camino and Alma, 16
which are right up against the sidewalk or the street, tall buildings that look massive. And this project 17
fits in that pattern, especially the section of the building which is where, which would go where We Fix 18
Macs currently is. I think it would be helpful if the entire building was moved back 4 or 5 feet along 19
that wall and if the third floor was moved back the same distance as the fourth floor is so you don’t 20
have three floors right up along the street, you only have two. 21
22
Also looking at the design I’m kind of struck at the difference in appearance between the section along 23
Portage and the section along El Camino. Portage is a lot less, Portage frontage is a lot less oppressive 24
City of Palo Alto Page 13
looking and it’s also setback farther. And if you had some way of putting more of that appearance on 1
the El Camino side I think it would soften the building some. 2
3
Of course a major problem you’re going to have is traffic and I think the traffic engineer’s estimate that 4
you’re not going to see an impact for 10 years is unrealistic. That doesn’t take into account the four 5
projects that are being built on El Camino right now: two hotels, a mixed-use building in the 4100 6
block of El Camino and the senior housing on the 4100 block of El Camino Way. So there’s a lot of 7
development going on and that’s all going to cause traffic. On the way down here I wanted to stop at 8
Fry’s so I drove down El Camino. And at 9:40 in the morning traffic was backed up to Fernando. 9
Traffic along El Camino now is horrible. The people who work and live in this building will not be 10
able to get out onto El Camino even when the traffic light turns red because the traffic is going to be 11
totally blocked up from Portage all the way down to Page Mill. So what they’re going to do in order to 12
escape that site is they are going to drive through the Fry’s parking lot and go down Park. Fry’s is 13
going to love it. 14
15
So I think you should work on making the building less oppressive along El Camino, setting it back 16
more, reducing the scale as much as possible. As for the traffic, I don’t think there’s any cure. I think 17
whatever we put in here is going to be awful, but this is going to make things even worse. 18
19
Acting Chair Lippert: Thank you Mr. Moss. Ok we’ll return to the Board for comments and questions. 20
We’ll begin with Board Member Alizadeh. 21
22
Board Member Alizadeh: Thank you. Maybe I would suggest that the people who move into this 23
building invest in bicycles as the way forward. In terms of the issue of the setback from El Camino, it’s 24
City of Palo Alto Page 14
something we discussed last night at the PTC meeting and so I, if that’s something that comes up then 1
obviously I will join in, but I won’t open that for discussion. I’d like to thank you for not using beige. 2
So I like the color palette a lot and the material palette a lot. I think that’s the way forward. 3
4
I have a couple questions specifically just because I’m looking at, I’m trying to be sensitive to these 5
issues of the street front frontage and whatnot. I guess in the restaurant zone where you have that 6
arcade there are two, I don’t know if they’re benches or if they’re bar level elements. Just what are 7
those exactly? 8
9
Ms. Young: That’s it exactly and you can see a little bit in this inspiration image that Guzzardo 10
provided there would be between the primary concrete columns there would be a horizontal bar seating 11
and the dining arcade I think was 11 feet wide? Twelve feet wide. So it’s a generous space and there’s 12
plenty of room for bar seating and actually some tables along the glazing wall. And that’s envisioned 13
in two of the three bays. It’s hard to see in this image, but this bay and this bay would have the bar 14
seating and then this bay would be open to allow for cross traffic between the entrance into the 15
restaurant and the sidewalk. 16
17
Board Member Alizadeh: I wonder just as in that image that you showed the kind of collage they also 18
incorporated some type of low seating in the front. I wonder if that, you’re kind of showing something 19
here I don’t know if that’s exactly what you’re doing (interrupted) 20
21
Ms. Young: This one? 22
23
Board Member Alizadeh: No, no, the same bar. You see how they have that (interrupted) 24
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
Ms. Young: Oh, to have a seat bench on El Camino? 2
3
Board Member Alizadeh: Something. I don’t know. 4
5
Ms. Young: I wondered about that. I think that could be really interesting. We should look at that 6
more. 7
8
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. The other question I have before I kind of move to other things; on 9
Portage there’s I guess it’s a garage metal door and I’m not quite sure what that’s going to. Is that a, it 10
doesn’t seem like it’s going to a garage. 11
12
Ms. Young: There is a service entrance which you can see, just let me get to the site plan, it’s right 13
here. There’s a service entrance into the restaurant. There’s a man door then there’s also a roll up door 14
into the trash and recycling area for the restaurant. 15
16
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. 17
18
Ms. Young: There’s a separate trash and recycling area for the residential here and yet another trash 19
and recycling area for the residential on the Acacia side. 20
21
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. Alright. Obviously it’s unfortunate with the location, but I’m assuming 22
you probably tried a million ways of figuring that out. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Ms. Young: There’s no back door. 1
2
Board Member Alizadeh: Yeah. 3
4
Ms. Young: And we really wanted to have the man door and the service door to the restaurant not on El 5
Camino and the parking as you can imagine is very critical for the success of a retail establishment. So 6
this is sort of our one little back door spot. 7
8
Board Member Alizadeh: Right. Yeah, other than that and just I think being sensitive to all the issues 9
about El Camino I think it’s a lovely project. It is very, there’s a lot of stuff going on here. I go to 10
Equinox so I’m familiar with the site and it’s complicated so yeah, I think it’s a successful project. 11
12
Where I think that I have problems is with the landscaping. So I don’t agree with this landscaping idea 13
at all. The triangles just don’t seem to work for me, the kind of slanted everything, the kind of… I 14
think there’s just nothing about it that I’m really enjoying. The details of what those raised planters are 15
like and how they’re also canted and then that screen thing, I’m not, it doesn’t jive with the building 16
because the building seems quite busy. There’s a lot of stuff going on. So for the, for me the landscape 17
is conflicting with that. Sorry. It’s really at odds with that with these triangular shapes. So building 18
yes, landscape no. I’ll just leave it at that. 19
20
Ms. Young: Thank you. 21
22
Acting Chair Lippert: Board Member Lew. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Board Member Lew: So, ok. So on the, I just want to say overall I do want to thank the applicant for 1
designing rental units and a variety of what do you call it? A type of unit that we haven’t seen before in 2
Palo Alto or at least not at this scale. We don’t, they’re not 6,000 square foot penthouses like we’re, 3
we’ve been seeing. I think that it’s a missing segment on the market that has, a segment of the market 4
that’s been ignored in Palo Alto. I think that that segment of the market from what I’ve seen in my 5
neighborhood, which is not near here though, is the type of person who would actually take a Google 6
bus or some sort of unmarked thing. In my particular neighborhood there’s a large apartment building 7
and the unmarked corporate buses stop by the front door and the people take the bus to work, the 8
private bus to work and I would, could envision something similar possibly happening here. 9
10
The, I like the, so I like the units, the mix of units. I like the efficient use of the parking lifts. I do like 11
the, your courtyard as a way of sort of creating a central spine organizing the project. And I definitely 12
like the other, the uses on the site like the restaurant and retail and office. 13
14
The concerns I have about the site planning are one is all of the traffic is going out onto Portage and as 15
it is now just because I think because of all the traffic at Fry’s and the long lights, the stoplight at El 16
Camino and Portage has a long queue because the El Camino lights are synchronized. I [been 17
concerned] that it’s going to be very difficult to get in and out of your, possibly of your project. 18
Maybe, maybe not or maybe it’s at certain times of day. I’m concerned about deliveries; like how do 19
delivery people navigate around the site? You know moving trucks, even just like United Parcel 20
Service (UPS) deliveries. If there’s a restaurant they have deliveries usually every day with trucks and 21
beverage delivery trucks. And it seems like El Camino, Portage, and Acacia are all fairly constrained. 22
I mean there are a lot of things happening on all of those streets so I’m concerned about that and how 23
that works. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
I’m concerned about the, your general [parte] of the building. I think because you’re working around 2
the existing Equinox building you have like some of the corridors are separated where you have to go 3
outside like if you’re in a hallway then you go through like fire doors and outside to connect to the rest 4
of the hallway. It seems a little complicated to me. You’ve also separated the main elevator from the 5
stairs which I think I understand why you’ve done it to sort of promote the use of the staircase over the 6
elevator and I actually do support that, but it seems complicated to me. Like if I’m a visitor and I see 7
your glass, I do like your glass staircase or your glass cube with the staircase, but I would be very 8
confused. Like if I see this it looks like the entrance, I’m there and then I need to take the elevator I 9
would be very confused to figure out how, that I have to go outside and walk all the way around like 10
that is total counterintuitive to me. And then also if I need to get to the, if I need to take the elevator 11
but if I need to go to the… I don’t know what you call it, Acacia wing of your building and I was in the 12
main courtyard I would be very confused that I need to go all the way around El Camino and Acacia to 13
go in and go up a ramp to use that elevator. It seems like really complicated to me and I wish there 14
were a way of simplifying it. It seems hard because you’re constrained because the Equinox site. It 15
seems to me that some sort of way finding in paving or landscaping, but somehow there has to be a 16
better way of sort of navigating around your site. 17
18
The massing of the building I think I generally like. I think there’s a lot of criticism of the El Camino 19
walls, but I think having an arcade does wonders for a building and it really gives you depth and light 20
and shadow and I think that that is significant and I also think that having your glass corner is 21
significant. I think we’ve seen that on a couple projects; one is under construction now down the street. 22
It’s a Ken Hayes project, but the glass corners are actually really very nice. And so I like that and I like 23
that it’s sort of like a vestige or a memory of the Banana Records building. And I like the modulation 24
City of Palo Alto Page 19
and changes of materials on your El Camino frontage and I would say also too that I think you achieved 1
really high level of concrete quality on some of your other projects on Portage and I hope you get that 2
same quality on this project. I think that it’s, it looks really good. 3
4
On the landscaping I think I [unintelligible] in agreement with Board Member Alizadeh. It just struck 5
me as being completely different than the building. And so and I think it’s possible for landscape to be 6
different from the architecture. I’m thinking of like in like Sau Paulo or like Macao they have like 7
these colonial arcaded buildings and then they have the wavy black and white paving. So it can be very 8
different, but somehow it works together. And I don’t really quite get that or the idea is lost to me. I 9
just don’t quite get the diagonal orientation. 10
11
Ms. Young: Can I jump in? 12
13
Board Member Lew: Mmm hmm. 14
15
Ms. Young: One thing I didn’t mention is that we’re trying to incorporate a number of feng shui 16
principles into the project and our feng shui consultant had been concerned about our long continuous 17
stretches of circulation and if you got into the floor plans you’d see we actually had intentionally 18
broken up some of our linear circulation and that was actually one of the thoughts here as well is to 19
create more of a meandering path as opposed to a straight shot. I also had some reservations about 20
rotating the paving, but the concept of having the carpet underneath the structure and then that 21
patterning supporting that meandering path to slow you down and to have you have a better sense of the 22
space I grew to appreciate over time. So and I’ll let them obviously bring some additional comments to 23
those points. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
Board Member Lew: Great. And then maybe it’s worthwhile looking at that, the paving, in three 2
dimensions in the space so maybe it would give me a better idea. I’m just reacting to the site plan and 3
just the contrast in the site plan. 4
5
Also in a related manner just on speaking about paving and on pathways is it seems like a little 6
confusing to me is how to get to the existing Equinox entrance. That to me seems to have gotten lost a 7
little bit in this project and it seems to me that could be stronger. 8
9
Ms. Young: Actually it’s unchanged. The existing Equinox entrance is identical to the current 10
proposed Equinox entrance. What they, to get into Equinox they have a security checkpoint off of this 11
parking area and the points of access of this expansion are all egress only. So you still enter into 12
Equinox the same what that you had before. 13
14
Board Member Lew: Yeah I was actually just talking about paving. Like so like if [unintelligible] 15
L2.2, maybe I’m, if I’m understanding your (interrupted) 16
17
Ms. Young: Yep, I’ll get there. We’ve tried to improve the interior courtyard connection. There’s a 18
new ramp and stair that connect. So the entrance is right here to Equinox and the, there’s a new stair 19
and ramp that go around this central ginkgo tree and we were actually hoping that the same way that the 20
pedestrian arcade and the entrance into the stair tower and the courtyard and the ginkgo tree that those 21
were spots along the connection path between the entrance to Equinox and the entrance to El Camino. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Board Member Lew: And then what about the, there’s the, you’re showing a gray concrete path going 1
out to Portage (interrupted) 2
3
Ms. Young: Yes. That’s under the building and it’s between the underbuilding at grade parking and 4
some service areas. They’re bike showers, long term bike storage, an accessible toilet room, MPOE, 5
trash, and all that good stuff. This path we actually debated as to whether or not it wanted to continue 6
that material. Are you proposing that the pattern of the courtyard continue along that pattern? Or that 7
pathway? 8
9
Board Member Lew: Well not necessarily. I was just thinking that there should be some connectivity 10
somehow. 11
12
Ms. Young: Ok. 13
14
Board Member Lew: I mean because your, if I go down that walkway right I mean it’s terminating at 15
your (interrupted) 16
17
Ms. Young: At the [unintelligible] (interrupted) 18
19
Board Member Lew: Connector piece. 20
21
Ms. Young: Station. 22
23
Board Member Lew: Yeah, your little (interrupted) 24
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
Ms. Young: Oh, well the bike share station is at one end. 2
3
Board Member Lew: Right, and then you have the doors. 4
5
Ms. Young: And the egress from Equinox, the breezeway connection between the two pieces is at the 6
other end. And then obviously the fountain is there as well. 7
8
Board Member Lew: Ok. I just think that it’s a little confusing, I don’t think you have to have, it 9
doesn’t, I don’t know what the solution is, but it seems like there’s a between connecting all of these 10
different access points I think that there’s a, I think there’s just room for some sort of improvement in 11
there. And I don’t think you have to have like a direct path, it doesn’t have to be a direct path. I can 12
understand from a feng shui point of view if you want to have something more meandering and I think 13
that that’s all fine. It just seems like a little chaotic to me. I don’t see the, all of these different pieces. 14
I don’t see that as greater than the sum of the parts, right? They seem a little separate to me. So 15
anyway that’s just a small point. 16
17
On the building [parte] or just the building organization I mentioned that I was a little concerned about 18
just the [hull], just the corridors on the upper floors that you’re going in and out. Some of those 19
outdoor corridors it seems to me like are intruding on the privacy of the private of the balconies on 20
some of the units. It’s not quite so ideal to me. I don’t quite understand the dividers that you have 21
between residential balconies. It seems like, yeah just you don’t quite get the idea. I do like that you 22
have substantial size balconies on the units. I think that’s really important especially when you have 23
like a small studio that you have a large outdoor space to make it, everything seem more open. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
I don’t quite understand the window patterns that you’re proposing for the units. I know you’re trying 2
to get some highlighting up at the, with the [clearer] stories. It seems very different than a normal 3
typical unit. So maybe if you would walk us through a typical, maybe like one typical unit on how 4
you’re coming up with that pattern of windows because it’s very different than like a typical residential 5
unit. 6
7
Ms. Young: They are actually. We, the design team knew from the beginning, sorry, how important 8
parking is to the success of a project and I have to acknowledge parking drives a great deal of the 9
structural grid of the project which in turn drives a great deal of the fundamental sizing of the 10
residential units. The residential units as you saw are a mix of studios and one bedroom apartments and 11
then there’s 1 two bedroom apartment. That’s it. 12
13
The idea with the residential units and let me see if, I appreciate it’s really hard to see here, but the idea 14
of the residential units is that they are organized off of a double loaded corridor. When you came into 15
the residential unit there was a small hall off of a closet and a sort of a little mudroom type area and 16
then you went through that to get to the toilet room space. When you came into the main space there is 17
a kitchen area and usually a large studio area. In the one bedrooms there’s a one bedroom off to the 18
side and/or a small bonus room that could easily be used as an office. But the concept is that the core 19
elements of the residential units are kept away from, excuse me, adjacent to the central corridor and that 20
gave you the greatest amount of flexibility for using the space of the studio or the one bedroom. 21
22
And as you mentioned, yes, the balconies are very generous. I think there are three units of the 48 that 23
don’t have a private balcony and of those that do four are 4 foot balconies and the rest are 8 feet deep or 24
City of Palo Alto Page 24
deeper. There are some of the units on El Camino the three here in particular that the terrace that they 1
have, it’s not even a balcony, it’s a terrace it’s approaching 700 square feet. I mean these are real 2
attractive outdoor living spaces. 3
4
What you mentioned about the clear story glazing is a consistent theme throughout the residential units 5
for Portage and Acacia that the top band in the rain screen wall system is a clear glass unit. The doors 6
have a large amount of glazing and then there are additional windows either in the bedrooms or in the 7
main space. Our thought was that being on Portage and Acacia you are in a more urban environment 8
and we wanted to have views to the sky and direct sunlight coming in, but allow for some interior wall 9
surface so that you could put the TV where it needed to be and have some sense of security and safety 10
in your home. The balconies also provide a level of separation between you and the public, but we 11
didn’t want to over glaze the Portage and Acacia areas. 12
13
When you go to El Camino, sorry, and you can see here this is actually a good shot of that. You’re 14
seeing the clear story glazing up above. You’re seeing the door that’s fairly glazed, but not completely 15
and then sidelights. When you get to El Camino it’s a slightly different approach where the strips of 16
glazing go from basically ground to the top of the concrete spandrel element. And the transition that 17
you’re seeing in color here is that transition I talked about between a matte finish terra cotta and a 18
grooved finish terra cotta that occurs at the junction between the door and the top element or the, 19
there’s a horizontal mullion there. 20
21
Board Member Lew: And the dividers between the? 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Ms. Young: Thank you. This is a actually a good shot of the dividers. We didn’t want the dividers to 1
be full height full width of the terrace, especially because the terraces are so deep, but we wanted to 2
give residents a sense of security in two ways. One, by providing a panel immediately adjacent to the 3
wall roughly three feet deep that would be a series of slats like this in a steel channel system that went 4
floor to ceiling so that you had a sense of a barrier but there was also some visual and light 5
transparency. Last thing we wanted to do was block the light since we worked so hard to get it into the 6
units. And then beyond that is a planter that’s a physical barrier; again that’s 42 inches high, 18 to 2 7
feet deep. We’re still working with the size of the pots that would be a physical barrier, but also 8
provide an opportunity for some small planting and I like having herbs and things near my kitchen. So 9
there’s two types of barriers again to keep it open and light but also give residents a sense of physical 10
security. 11
12
Board Member Lew: And then on the residential balconies and terraces normally, [unintelligible] 13
normally. I mean oftentimes they’re opaque or semi-opaque just because the management doesn’t want 14
to police the tenants on what’s being stored there. I know that you have storage shown in the drawings, 15
which is unusual, like inside the building, which is appreciated. 16
17
Ms. Young: Correct. 18
19
Board Member Lew: And it’s not usually required so I do like that. 20
21
Ms. Young: If I can? 22
23
Board Member Lew: Yeah. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
Ms. Young: Head where you’re headed. Two big items that are typically stored on balconies are 2
bicycles and furniture and we definitely want to encourage furnishings out there because we want the 3
street life and the activity, but bicycles we actually have and I’m going to get the number wrong, but 4
about 75 percent of our long term bike storage is actually in the residential units. I believe it was you 5
Lee who said you want to encourage bicycling for this project. We’re doing everything we can to 6
encourage bicycling for this project. There are long term, there are dedicated bike storage spaces in the 7
majority of the units. There are, there’s a bike share station at grade. There are more than ample short 8
term bike storage locations front and center at prominent locations throughout the site and there’s 9
additional long term bike storage in the below grade parking facility. 10
11
There’s also additional, not only is there storage within the units, not just for bikes but for other 12
elements, but there are personal storage rooms on the floor for each unit that I think vary between 17 13
and 19 square feet roughly. And that’s sizeable enough that you don’t have to worry about people 14
taking their things and putting them on the balcony. Also the project is going to be managed very 15
aggressively in that the tenants will be required to sign leases that are very clear about elements that are 16
and are not allowed out on the terraces. 17
18
Board Member Lew: Thank you. And I have a couple questions for staff or Russ. 19
20
Mr. Reich: Sorry. 21
22
Board Member Lew: I had a question about the DEE for height. So the zoning ordinance is pretty 23
specific in saying the DEE’s aren’t supposed to use to, for additional, to get additional floor area. And 24
City of Palo Alto Page 27
so I was wondering how you factored how you guys have been thinking about this. Because I know 1
that because it’s an affordable project they have other ways of getting additional floor area. So how do 2
you, what was the thinking of this? 3
4
Mr. Reich: The DEE is specifically for height. It is not for floor area. While the loft areas do comprise 5
floor area they’re not using the DEE to get floor area. 6
7
Board Member Lew: Ok. 8
9
Mr. Reich: They are doing 10 percent of the units as BMR’s and one of the, the one concession they’re 10
requesting is for square footage. It is not specifically for the loft area square footage, but it is for square 11
footage of the project. 12
13
Board Member Lew: Ok, got it. Great. Thank you for that. And I [was going to say] on the lofts I 14
mean I’ve seen other projects like in San Francisco that had that kind of pop up space and it’s really 15
nice I mean those are really seems to me highly desirable and it’s in a place where you’re not really 16
adding a lot of mass to the street because it’s located in the center of the building. So I think I can 17
generally support that and I think I can also support the DEE on Portage. That seems to me kind of like 18
a no brainer. I think Board Member Alizadeh mentioned, she was talking about that trash garage door 19
on Portage and I’m not quite so happy with that whole vertical section of the building. I mean I think 20
that could be stronger. You’ve got like a trash room, mechanical room, and office space (interrupted) 21
22
Ms. Young: Back here? 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Board Member Lew: Yeah. I mean I think that that piece it’s a very tricky piece between the 1
residential and the restaurant/office cube on the corner. I think that could be stronger. I don’t know 2
how to do it, but I mean I think you could. It seems to be between like a roll up door and louvers and 3
windows and stuff. I think something could be done though just to make it a stronger transition 4
element. Because it’s a little, I don’t know, it seems a little awkward to me at this point. And if it were 5
on the back of the building I’d say who cares, but this is like right on the main, to me this is like your, 6
this is what everybody’s going to see because everybody’s headed northbound on El Camino. This is 7
your main view. So I’m a little concerned about that. I do understand you have a lot of constraints on 8
the site because of the, just the general [parte] of the building. 9
10
And then on the, I think what I’d like to see also come back [to us] on the site walls that you have here 11
like just information and details on that. Is that also all of the perimeter walls are those all board form 12
concrete or are those, what are they and the colors and stuff? Because this, they are sort of rendered a 13
little differently. I mean the board form concrete and then yeah. 14
15
Ms. Young: I apologize. The, I should have labeled them. They are cast in place or board form 16
concrete. There may be some that are smooth as opposed to the board form, but it’s intended to be cast 17
in place. 18
19
Board Member Lew: Ok. 20
21
Ms. Young: And there are a number of planters around. We obviously have to treat our storm water all 22
on site and so there are several planters on the perimeter of the building. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Board Member Lew: And then I had one last question for you. So on the third floor so you have like an 1
office and apartments sharing the same corridor. And I was wondering if you had thought about how 2
that actually… 3
4
Ms. Young: You mean right here? This is (interrupted) 5
6
Board Member Lew: There’s that and then also the what goes inside, which isn’t really our purview, 7
but I was just wondering have you thought about the or what have you, how have you been thinking 8
about that? Because it’s kind of unusual for those uses to be shared and I don’t know I mean it’s a little 9
unusual. I’ve worked in a building that had something like this and it worked, but it was like a really 10
small building. It was nothing at this scale. But it was a little strange; I mean it was a little weird I 11
have to say. 12
13
Ms. Young: I understand your concerns. The, our impression is the office users are primarily going to 14
be using the central stair and that the objective is to have a single tenant on the third floor, however, it’s 15
easily foreseeable that there would be two or three tenants on the third floor. In any event their 16
entrances would likely be, excuse me, would likely be focused either right at this point or just off the 17
stair tower on the interior. So those connecting corridors that you’re referring to that are deeper in the 18
third floor residential space are actually egress, safety secondary corridors. I don’t envision them being 19
used unless there happens to be a tenant in the residential who is working in the office space. 20
21
Board Member Lew: Ok, thank you. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Acting Chair Lippert: Before Board Member Popp goes I’m just going to ask if there’s anybody else 1
from the public that wishes to speak to this item? Ok, if not I’m going to close the public hearing at 2
this point. And the Chair speaks last so I’ll wait for Board Member Popp to return. 3
4
Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff. A general question since we have time. Can you 5
explain what’s happening in the Fry’s site? And then also I think I’ve seen some master planning in the 6
around like Pepper Street, like that area. I think I’ve, I forgot which plan that was or which study it 7
was, but it seems like there was some discussion about connecting Ash between Fry’s and like Pepper 8
[unintelligible]. 9
10
Mr. Reich: There are discussions. I haven’t been involved in those discussions so I couldn’t really 11
speak to them. I mean if you do have specific questions I can get you that information in terms of the 12
current thinking, but there’s nothing in place at this time relative to that, but I know there’s a Cal Ave. 13
plan. I’ve spoken to Elena Lee who’s the Planner working on that project and she said there wasn’t 14
anything about this project that’s inconsistent with that plan, but I don’t know the details of the plan. 15
16
Board Member Lew: Thank you. 17
18
Acting Chair Lippert: Board Member Popp you weren’t here so we gave away your time. Please go 19
ahead. 20
21
Board Member Popp: I have nothing to say anyway. So first let me say I will come out in support of 22
both of the DEE’s. I think they both make sense here and I’m in favor of them. Bunch of things I 23
really like about this project. The material palette is just great. I really love the colors. I’ll echo 24
City of Palo Alto Page 31
comments others have made about that. I think it’s such a complex project, so many pieces and things 1
and your clever reuse of the building that Equinox is in at El Camino and what you’ve done building 2
over and under that is really an accomplishment. I think people need to pay attention to how clever that 3
is and look for opportunities like that. 4
5
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I agree with Mr. Moss in some ways about how this building is 6
pressing on El Camino. And I think that while I don’t agree with him at all about the fact that you 7
should move the whole building back, I think that would be completely the wrong thing to do I do think 8
that there are elements of this building that could go in and out just a bit more. And I think from my 9
perspective the area I would ask you to take a look at is at the corner of Acacia and El Camino. You’ve 10
done a very nice job I think at the corner of Portage and El Camino, but the Acacia corner particularly 11
with this long heavy element before you get to any of the window openings feels awfully dominant to 12
me. And I think there might be another way to address that corner that would lighten that up a little bit 13
and maybe pull that corner in a little bit. I’m not sure what the answer is Heather, but I think that 14
there’s this nice corner at the Portage side. You’ve got the screen that comes down. I do love that it 15
sort of reflects the character of the old Banana Records building. I think that’s fun. I very much like 16
the covered arcade and the, this long bench and, I’m sorry, long table and options for seating along 17
there. I think that in and out in that area it gives the building a very nice character even though it is 18
quite close to the street, but as we get further down that elevation at the Acacia corner I’m just 19
wondering if there isn’t an opportunity to give a little more relief there and ask you to study that just a 20
little bit. 21
22
Let’s see, I think, I do have a question for you about how you’re going to prevent the public from 23
accessing the private garage. How is that controlled? 24
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
Ms. Young: We’re not. You have to realize that because it’s a mixed-use project it’s open and 2
accessible 24 hours a day. It is right now. Anyone can drive down into the lower part of the garage if 3
they choose to. There is onsite security who patrols during the day and I’m imagining that there will be 4
some modification to the existing security once the full project is continued. The parking machine 5
spaces you have to have a fob and you have a space. No one else can park in your space. So that 6
shouldn’t be (interrupted) 7
8
Board Member Popp: They’re just not accessible at all? 9
10
Ms. Young: If you have one of the assigned puzzle lift spaces it’s your space and no one else is in, it’s 11
like the little tray that your car is on… 12
13
Board Member Popp: Right. 14
15
Ms. Young: Is programed to recognize the weight of your car, the width of your car, the height of your 16
car, all that good stuff. 17
18
Board Member Popp: Ok. So there’s no opportunity for someone to park in one of those trays? 19
20
Ms. Young: No. 21
22
Board Member Popp: By accident? 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Ms. Young: No. 1
2
Board Member Popp: Great. I’m still learning about these puzzle lifts, but they, they’re a great 3
solution. 4
5
Ms. Young: I’ve got a little video if you want to see it. 6
7
Board Member Popp: You know I’ve seen it, I just didn’t understand how the access control works. 8
9
Ms. Young: Sure. 10
11
Board Member Popp: Thank you. I’ll echo a couple of comments that Board Member Lew has made 12
about a little further refinement of material placement and in particular this, in this small piece of 13
Portage where the trash is and the doors are and I think that if there was a little area that seems a bit less 14
developed to me it’s that spot and I don’t know if it’s just painting the doors so that they disappear or 15
what has to happen there, but I’m not yeah let’s get there. 16
17
Ms. Young: Yeah, this is the area and just (interrupted) 18
19
Board Member Popp: And primarily at the ground plane, not up above for me. I know that’s tough. 20
21
Ms. Young: If you like to work with Recology and diminishing their requirements for recycling I 22
would be right there with you. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 34
Board Member Popp: No, no I’m happy for them to have significant requirements for recycling. That’s 1
good. It’s just a question of is there something to be done with those doors to make it blend in better, 2
fit better, some patterning that might be done on it. I don’t want to start suggesting solutions for you. I 3
just think that that’s an area that might be studied a little bit further. And if that’s the best it can be, so 4
be it, but (interrupted) 5
6
Ms. Young: And clearly these are exhaust louvers. 7
8
Board Member Popp: Right. 9
10
Ms. Young: And clearly if we have the ability to reduce the size of those we definitely will. 11
12
Board Member Popp: I’m thinking back to a review we had of the Bloomingdale store and there were 13
these very significant garage doors in that building and we spent a lot of time going back and forth with 14
them about how to articulate the surface of those doors and do things to help them blend in. And after a 15
couple of rounds we got something that was much better. And so I’m just suggesting that there might 16
be, do a little bit of design exercise right at that one piece and maybe come up with something different. 17
Maybe not, but study it if you would please. 18
19
Ms. Young: Ok. 20
21
Board Member Popp: I think that we talked a little bit when we met about stair number one and the 22
glazing system and whether that would be finer than the elevations show and in this rendering that 23
City of Palo Alto Page 35
you’re showing here I’m much happier with how that looks and is that really a more accurate 1
representation of what we’re likely to get there? 2
3
Ms. Young: Absolutely. 4
5
Board Member Popp: That’s great. 6
7
Ms. Young: And the images that we shared with you at the [pen weight] was not (interrupted) 8
9
Board Member Popp: That’s just fine. That’s just fine and again the materials that you’re showing I 10
think are very nice. I love the wood grain and those pieces. We got this little packet at our tables. 11
12
Ms. Young: Yes, yes. 13
14
Board Member Popp: Just briefly as we’re sitting here and I had a little bit of time to look through it 15
and I would say if you want me to pick options on these for the Acacia stair I really prefer Option B. 16
17
Ms. Young: Great. 18
19
Board Member Popp: That has the more linear zinc panels. And I think for the Portage stair I am more 20
in favor of the shingles, but I don’t have a really strong feeling either way. I sort of like the idea that 21
they would be different, but I’ll leave that to you. I appreciate that you gave us options, but I’ll just say 22
that I don’t have a really strong feeling for the Portage, but I do like the linear design for the Acacia 23
better. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
Ms. Young: We did too and as the last applicant mentioned a lot of times materials and samples arrive 2
after deadlines and whatnot. 3
4
Board Member Popp: Sure. 5
6
Ms. Young: In fact we got a gray that was slightly different than the gray that we had put on the board 7
that we liked better and I suspect that as the project evolves there will be other instances where this 8
material may not be installed for a year and there may be another colors that comes out that’s an even 9
better fit for the project, so... 10
11
Board Member Popp: Right. I know you’re well aware of this, but I think if colors change and if things 12
are not available it’s something that you have an obligation to come back with. 13
14
Ms. Young: Absolutely. 15
16
Board Member Popp: Thank you very much. I am in complete agreement with Board Member 17
Alizadeh. I think that the landscape plan is in complete conflict with the building here and I just, I 18
can’t find anything about it that I’m really connected to. I think (interrupted) 19
20
Ms. Young: Would this be good opportunity for them to (interrupted) 21
22
Board Member Popp: Yeah maybe Gary you want to come up and I mean if you want to address this a 23
little bit I’m happy to have your voice in the conversation. I think that there are places where the 24
City of Palo Alto Page 37
contrast is great and when you have some [very] organic landscape design in contrast to some very 1
traditional architecture I think those things work well together and they can be fun and playful and 2
interesting, but I’m really having a hard time with this particular design because it just it’s, it is sort of 3
rectilinear. And I’m not suggesting that you should go all organic on this thing, but I think that the fact 4
that it really doesn’t relate to the architecture at all is very challenging for me. And I think that I would 5
because there are so many pieces and parts and things going on and moving in and out and doing all 6
kinds of stuff here I’m sort of looking for the ground plane to knit everything together and to give it a 7
logic and I think that Board Member Lew has talked a little bit about way finding. I think that the 8
design of the ground plane could really assist in that in a great way and what’s happening now is it’s 9
really not informing that way finding in the way that I hope it might potentially. So is there something 10
that you want to add to the conversation or? 11
12
Mr. Lehman: Well maybe just some kind of what I’m hearing through that so that I get my orientation 13
along the lines of what you’re saying. It sounds like that there’s because the project is very complex 14
altogether in every aspect and the landscape is a complex landscape so it sounds like what I’m hearing 15
is that there’s a desire to make the landscape sort of quieter, less complex, more unifying as opposed to 16
adding another voice to the conversation. In terms of creating maybe a finer texture might be a way of 17
doing that, looking at ways to make it softer, maybe a more unifying type of element. 18
19
I am curious just off the cuff I’m not quite sure how to amplify the way finding and not make it too 20
linear in terms of, because we’re really not trying to make it linear. So I appreciate that you want to be 21
able to find your way through the space and you want to have some visual clues as to how to do that, 22
but to actually translate it into something that’s overtly linear might not quite be the way that we would 23
want to do that so I don’t have, that’s a little fuzzy for me [unintelligible—talking over each other] 24
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1
Board Member Popp: So I certainly don’t have the hours into this that I’m sure you do, right? But I 2
think that just at a quick glance there’s a lot of intersecting pathways and there’s probably a hierarchy 3
that might be described. And I’m hesitant to reinforce the language about softening. I think that’s not 4
what I’m trying to suggest. Others might have a different opinion, but I think what I’m trying to get at 5
is a relationship between the architecture and the landscape that I’m not seeing right now. And I don’t 6
mind if there’s a hierarchy of intensity. I don’t mind if there is, I mean if you have to walk along a 7
straight path, it’s a straight path. It’s going to go from A to B and you’re going to walk it whether the 8
paving pattern underneath your feet is kittywhompus or not, so I think the logic is always more 9
comfortable for me and I think looking at places where pathways intersect and you might have a choice 10
about turning this way or going straight and how that might inform different elements might be helpful 11
here. 12
13
I think, again I agree with Alex’s comment about the stair and the elevator not being right near each 14
other and actually being, I very much like the idea that you’re encouraging the use of the stair. Right? 15
Let’s support that, but at the same time I think it becomes confusing and challenging to find the 16
elevator in some ways because you tend to expect those things to be near each other and to have some 17
adjacency and in this particular design they intentionally don’t. But again I think the landscape might 18
help to inform that a little bit or help you to get where you need to be and so just bring your skill to bear 19
here and come at it again for us and I think probably be more excited about what else you come up 20
with. 21
22
Mr. Lehman: Ok, yeah. Anything else that you’d like to add to that or? 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 39
Board Member Alizadeh: Sure, yeah I guess it’s for me not a literal ok so you want to do the way 1
finding, ok, but it doesn’t have to be literally that things are at an angle. And that I think that the 2
triangles I remember one of my professors said “Triangles breed like rabbits,” so once you have one 3
triangle that’s all you have. And so that’s all I see is just these strange triangles. So if you want people 4
to have to go around I think there’s different ways that whole frontage can bump out a bit, things can 5
have I think less angular edges and then on top they don’t line up with the paving pattern so I’m, it’s 6
too chaotic for me. So I think if there are those ideas of imagining somebody walking through this but 7
it doesn’t have to be so angular I think is, and I don’t mean softening. It can still be large and bold, but 8
maybe something which corresponds more to the architectural language if that helps. 9
10
Mr. Lehman: No that is helpful. Thank you. 11
12
Board Member Popp: [Unintelligible—talking over each other] I got a couple of other things 13
[unintelligible]. 14
15
Board Member Lew: This is really just landscape as well. So like my, for these urban projects that 16
have these kind of courtyard spaces my two favorite landscape kind of spaces are Frank Gehry’s 17
Edgemar project in Santa Monica and also his I think it’s the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. And 18
in really confined spaces what he does is, I don’t know if [he did the] landscape maybe for this I don’t 19
know if it was Pete Walker or somebody. They do have like angular elements that you have. It’s three 20
dimensional. It’s raised planters and fountains and I think you have that in the plan and I think that 21
those can be tweaked and worked, and work really well. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 40
And then I think if I recall is that the paving kind of disappears. Like you’re really looking at you’re in 1
a very urban space and you see this thing, right? And then the paving is just all back, it’s like all 2
background because you’re really just it’s such an urban space that you’re creating some sort of three 3
dimensional element or you’ve got your specimen ginkgo tree and a planter around it and that’s what 4
you look at. And then I think what happens is here is with the gird and the paving it just makes it too, 5
like too busy. And I think that the paving here that’s shown in our plans might be more contrast than I 6
think the samples that we saw so there may be some disparity between the renderings and the actual 7
concrete. Thank you. 8
9
Board Member Popp: So last comment I guess for Heather is while I think you’ve done a great job of 10
putting together all these really intricate pieces it’s a little challenging to me that there are three units 11
that have no balconies and I’m just (interrupted) 12
13
Ms. Young: Do you want me to walk through them with you? 14
15
Board Member Popp: No, I know where they are. I found them. I found them all. I’m just wondering, 16
I’ve done a bit of this kind of work and sometimes there are opportunities to suck a unit back into the 17
building some way and create a recessed balcony instead of one that projects out and you can get 18
around, what I’m anticipating as causing some of this is fire separation and some of these other 19
building code regulations that drive the inability to have exterior balcony space. And as an example I 20
think the one that’s sort of centered in the middle of the building (interrupted) 21
22
Ms. Young: Yes. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 41
Board Member Popp: That’s over the walkway. If you had an opportunity to suck that unit back into 1
the building and create a recessed balcony rather than a projecting balcony there might be an 2
opportunity to interpret the code in a different way there and it just means migrating the hallway around 3
the back of it in a different way. It projects farther before it turns, something like that and so I’m not 4
quite satisfied that all of these have to lose their balconies. So I think study it a little farther. You’ve 5
got a lot more hours into this than I do. I’ll say the same thing again (interrupted) 6
7
Ms. Young: It’s a definitely a fair observation. We (interrupted) 8
9
Board Member Popp: Three is a lot to lose. I mean those are, having a unit that has no open space is, 10
it’s a tough thing to promote. And so while I’m really thrilled with a rental project like this and I think 11
that this definitely meets a tremendous pent up demand I think that people that use these are cooped up 12
inside offices and programming on computers and working all day long inside a building. And to have 13
a little bit of open space and certainly once you get up high in these buildings the view of the foothills 14
from this is going to be excellent and so not having a balcony out front there, what a shame. So just 15
work at it a little bit if you can and see if you can’t devise some clever approach to get that back. 16
17
Ms. Young: Thank you. 18
19
Board Member Popp: Thank you. Very nice project. 20
21
Acting Chair Lippert: Well I’d like to begin by saying I’m very pleased with what I see here. This 22
project really has the opportunity to drive the whole Fry’s site as far as what’s possible. And so the 23
importance of this project is that in reviewing it it’s important that we get it right. We make sure that 24
City of Palo Alto Page 42
it’s done in a way that addresses all the issues because the next step ultimately will be what happens at 1
Fry’s. The fact that it’s a mixed-use building you described it as a complex building. This is a very 2
sophisticated building and by that what I mean is you’ve maximized the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 3
You’ve added to that additional density. I understand what you’re doing here in terms of the BMR 4
units. What you’ve done here is because they’re smaller rental units there is no BMR requirement, but 5
by adding the BMR element to it you’re allowed to go in for the concessions and the concessions are 6
put in the right place, which is really density. So you’ve done an incredible job here with putting 7
together what I consider to be the driving force, could be the driving force behind future mixed use 8
development projects on El Camino Real and it does it in a meaningful way. It’s very easy to 9
understand. 10
11
I like the fact that you’ve preserved the Equinox or the former Pet Food Depot space, but I question in 12
some ways whether from a cost benefit analysis whether it’s worth preserving that building. It’s a 13
simple tilt up concrete building and in fact to tunnel under it and to build over it, why not just simply 14
demolish it and incorporate something that’s very similar to what you’ve got there? 15
16
Ms. Young: Actually it goes back to rent to tell you the truth. Equinox in its original location signed a 17
20 year lease with a option to expand El Camino and they took advantage of the option and were very 18
clear that they wanted to encourage as much as possible continuous operation, not just from the 19
expansion, but during construction and after. And so the design of the expansion to Equinox and the 20
renovation from Pet Food Depot to Equinox included the shoring for the building. So there is existing 21
shoring under that structure that will enable us to dig under and provide for the life safety requirements 22
of the occupants in the building so while you’re there working out and they’re working under and over 23
and adjacent to you, you should have no life safety issues. And that was a major driver that came from 24
City of Palo Alto Page 43
the development team. And in fact the whole push for the mixed-use, the diversity of uses within this, 1
the project the density, it’s all coming from the development team. 2
3
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah, you know I’m mindful of that. I think that there are trades that can be 4
made. I mean you see it all the time where somebody’s building is getting demolished and landlord 5
says “Hey, I got another space. I’ll move you here temporarily.” I mean you could for all practical 6
purposes I think build the proposed restaurant/retail space, use that temporarily for the cycling studio 7
and whatever is there and then while you demolish and renovate that part of the building… I mean 8
there are ways of dealing with the issue. I just question the validity of saving such a, I hate to use the 9
word, morsel, for a very sophisticated solution. 10
11
Ms. Young: Again, thank you. We actually designed the morsel knowing that these other elements 12
were coming. So I’d like to think that we were trying to think ahead. I don’t, do you have some 13
suggestions for how that portion of the façade should be modified to better incorporate or? 14
15
Acting Chair Lippert: No, but let me just put it this way that element that you’ve designed for the front 16
of Equinox is so strong that it really is a driving element of the architecture. So what you’ve done is 17
you’ve actually taken that piece of architecture and in some ways replicated it for the restaurant in 18
terms of the arcade that’s there. Now if that building wasn’t there is there another approach that you 19
would have taken? That’s my feeling about it. And the only reason why I say this is that I think the 20
piece that falls short is the El Camino portal. So what’s happened is the most important feature of the 21
building, which is the main entrance becomes subservient to the two side elements. It’s sort of, now 22
there’s nothing wrong about that I mean you could look at for instance the arcade Vittorio Emanuele in 23
Italy. That’s very much the same way in which they have an arcade on both sides and then you’ve got 24
City of Palo Alto Page 44
this interior mall, but I don’t feel that in this building. And that brings me to the next point, which is El 1
Camino Real. We had a meeting last night, I think I saw you in the audience sitting in and watching a 2
little bit of it where we were taking about sidewalk widths. 3
4
Ms. Young: Yes. 5
6
Acting Chair Lippert: And as you know that’s become a very important issue with regard to City 7
Council. And so I think that there’s an opportunity here actually by taking the dining off of El Camino 8
Real or actually creating a wider sidewalk where the dining spills onto the sidewalk, widening the 9
sidewalk there, making it feel a lot more generous and maybe taking some of that dining around to the 10
portal of the building, around to the other side of the restaurant so that it becomes covered dining on, in 11
the portal or the El Camino Real portal or entrance to the building. 12
13
Ms. Young: That’s an interesting observation. As you all know we had a requirement to do the 50 14
percent build to on El Camino at twelve feet. 15
16
Acting Chair Lippert: Right. 17
18
Ms. Young: And so that was met with the frontage at the dining arcade, the existing Equinox, and then 19
the retail/commercial expansion, but we’re obviously very much aware of the discussions going on 20
between PTC, Architectural Review Board (ARB), and the City Council and obviously the community 21
about a possibility of expanding the sidewalks on El Camino. And that’s actually one of the reasons 22
why we intentionally created the dining arcade on El Camino to allow for greater pedestrian interaction 23
and still meet the build to requirement and then pushed back that retail double height space to create the 24
City of Palo Alto Page 45
open to the sky dining terrace. We also have a grade change in that area. So we thought that again 1
trying to find ways to make the people feel safe that close to El Camino and by raising the dining 2
terrace just that little bit and having the low wall along the street would encourage them to feel safe and 3
comfortable in that outdoor environment. And then again the pedestrian arcade to give those direct 4
physical links to the interior courtyard. How the City and the Council ultimately resolve the sidewalk 5
widths is a big challenge for us as a community. 6
7
Acting Chair Lippert: Right. Well we can’t make you conform to a requirement that isn’t there. And 8
what I’m simply suggesting is that there is opportunity here to go to greater sidewalk width, to begin to 9
play with it and if it’s a concern with regard to the dining in some ways there’s a way to handle that by 10
simply moving it around the corner to the El Camino portal, yeah. 11
12
Ms. Young: Pedestrian arcade, yeah. 13
14
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah. 15
16
Ms. Young: And that may happen naturally. 17
18
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah, ok. The importance I think of that corner retail/restaurant space is that 19
because of this being Equinox nearby, because of the residential component, because of the office 20
component it’s very desirable to have some sort of restaurant in that building. I think that that’s going 21
to add a lot of activity to that corner and make it seem very exciting. So I think that that’s a very 22
successful part of the design here. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 46
The around the corner however on the Acacia side of the building I think it’s a little, just a little dead. 1
It doesn’t have that excitement and I wish there was a way to bring that around to that side of the 2
building. Again because I think that this is such an important project as to how it begins to drive other 3
mixed-use projects on El Camino Real and ultimately the Fry’s site how we treat these secondary 4
streets is particularly important. So how do we begin to generate activity and interest there? 5
6
Ms. Young: Thank you. And I neglected to mention a couple of pedestrian opportunities on Acacia. 7
One of them is that the double height, sorry, the ground floor commercial office space here is setback 8
from the required sidewalk width and there’s a small outdoor seating area along there which we’re 9
envisioning as spill out space for the office occupants. There’s also a small pet friendly, oops, there it 10
is, a small pet friendly park right here. It can’t be a dog park. We don’t have the ability to have fences 11
and let dogs run free, but there may be a residential occupant or an office occupant who has a dog that 12
they bring to work and we wanted to make sure that that, that their needs were also addressed. Again 13
the design of the stair in this location is very much about engaging the pedestrian and we really took an 14
opportunity to create this stair as a very sculptural element the sort of thing where I’d like to think 15
people would take it just because it’s fun and they can have a chance to experience that vertical 16
movement in a different way than a traditional enclosed stair or even our courtyard stair, which does 17
have great views and I think is well located. 18
19
So I think we have tried to bring some more of the pedestrian life and scale to the Acacia elevation. 20
The hope with the design of the corner double height space is that the retail or commercial recreation 21
tenant, it could be a bank for instance, it could be another studio space from Equinox, if it were either 22
of those the interior space would be a very lively space. And the large fenestration that opens onto both 23
Acacia and to El Camino I think would be a great visual way of engaging the vehicular traffic as well 24
City of Palo Alto Page 47
as the pedestrian traffic. It’s a small secondary street and at this point in time its primary use is 1
basically parking. The street itself only goes to the end of this block. It doesn’t extend any further 2
along so we were a little hesitant in over promoting it. We’re not privileged to the Fry’s site plans and 3
so we were trying to kind of allow for a future use that was more pedestrian or less pedestrian. We 4
didn’t want to tip it one way or the other too far. 5
6
Acting Chair Lippert: Right. Well let me just tell you what I’m thinking ok? You’ve got the El 7
Camino Real portal and what’s really missing here is the connectivity between Acacia and the main 8
part of the site. What happens is that the Equinox gym and cycling space actually bifurcates it and 9
actually breaks the building into two elements. So with that you can’t, you don’t have that 10
connectivity. So what I’m thinking of off the top of my head is just simply taking the proposed office 11
space and that little dog park and the staircase and just flipping them so that the staircase, the park, all 12
of that happens in between the retail space and the office space so it acts as a plaza for that part of the 13
building. So it creates a new entrance for that Acacia face. It’s secondary, but at least it gets you into 14
the office building, it creates an identity for the office building, it allows for vertical circulation up to 15
the second floor where actually the third floor and up and over Equinox. So it creates some sort of 16
secondary entrance or portal. I’m not going to feel as though I can’t get through. I might have to go up 17
and over to get through, but at least I have the sense or feeling that there’s some sort of an entry there 18
rather than three disjointed pieces. 19
20
Ms. Young: Very interesting observation. I know you’ve been to the site and you’re probably aware of 21
the pedestrian walk, oops, the pedestrian walk here. We were actually trying to maintain that visual 22
sight line where the two buildings break and hadn’t occurred to consider that other option. We were 23
actually trying to support that existing visual connection and glass connection (interrupted) 24
City of Palo Alto Page 48
1
Acting Chair Lippert: Right, but unless you’re going to allow people to go through it it’s artificial. 2
3
Ms. Young: The current tenant is not interested in pursuing that, but there could easily be a future 4
tenant who would support that very much. 5
6
Acting Chair Lippert: Right, right. Ok. And then there are just two more elements that I want to talk 7
about and then I think I’ll, I think we can wrap this up. One is your balconies. You’ve done a really 8
beautiful job with regard to the residential balconies and the, I guess what you’re proposing there is a 9
cable system? 10
11
Ms. Young: No. It’s a steel, a painted steel rail system. 12
13
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok. I think it introduces another element into the building that maybe it may not 14
be necessary. In some ways you’ve introduced this element of the louvers and maybe there’s a way of 15
creating railings out of the same wood louver element that would then tie the upper floors and what’s 16
going on on some of the other floors. I just find that the upper floors are much more disjointed than 17
what you’ve got the base of the building is very solid and this is, this goes back to I guess the last 18
presentation with what Ken Hayes had proposed on his Cowper project. He had a very strong base to 19
that building and I don’t see that with the upper floors there. In some ways I don’t feel as though 20
they’ve really articulated or identified themselves well enough. I love the material that you’re 21
proposing for the walls. I’m not so crazy about the railings though. Any thoughts on that? 22
23
Ms. Young: You take me by surprise. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 49
1
Acting Chair Lippert: I know. 2
3
Ms. Young: I actually feel like the steel, painted steel railings are very much in keeping with the 4
palette. The ground floor window wall system is a painted steel and glass system and all of the steel is 5
going to be from dimensional steel, structural steel members. And the railing system obviously scaled 6
down considerably, but our thought was that it was very much in keeping with the steel and glass 7
fenestration system for the lower floors and also in keeping with the, I didn’t mention this, the 8
residential units on Portage and Acacia have it’s a metal finish aluminum window system and door 9
system, but the terra cotta pieces on El Camino that’s all a painted steel window system. And I 10
apologize; I didn’t mention that because in my head we’re repeating that use of the painted steel in a 11
number of locations. 12
13
I hadn’t really thought about the transparency or the materiality of the railings as being outside of our 14
palette. It’s an interesting thought to try and make it perhaps less transparent. Don’t know if going to 15
the, a wood system is the first thing that comes to mind. It’s an interesting thought. Huh. 16
17
Acting Chair Lippert: I guess what I’m looking at there is that you’ve got these terraces, which are 18
planes ok? And in some ways what I think I would like, what I prefer to see is horizontal bands. So in 19
other words those terraces and the railings work together and almost become one element that maybe 20
and I’m just thinking about this, which is you have a horizontal, you have horizontal bands which are 21
the railings and then they obscure the horizontal decks and then maybe drop down a little bit more and 22
become a horizontal sunscreen and then you’ve got an open space and then it repeats itself again. So 23
that that becomes a much more stronger longitudinal element. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 50
1
Ms. Young: That’s a lovely sectional concept. I don’t know if you had a chance to explore the large 2
scale wall sections that we had at the back of the drawing set. We had a slightly different take and part 3
of it is, and I think you can see it here, the terraces and balconies, excuse me, the balconies taper up and 4
we were, we played with having a sunscreen drop from that perimeter edge, but it seemed almost to 5
weigh down that lifting expression and you can see it even more here. Because we really are 6
cantilevering. 7
8
Acting Chair Lippert: Right. 9
10
Ms. Young: This is a very definite (interrupted) 11
12
Acting Chair Lippert: I got that. 13
14
Ms. Young: And we also again after having worked so hard to get the clear story lighting at the top to 15
come back with a dropped sunscreen seemed contradictory. But again the thought of finding a way to 16
promote a higher integration between the railing design and the architecture, which I think is your 17
primary point. 18
19
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah I don’t want to tell you how to do it. I’m just, I’m telling you what I’m 20
thinking. 21
22
Ms. Young: Sure. That’s something we should look at. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 51
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok. And then the last thing is we got this at our places. 1
2
Ms. Young: Oh yes. Yes. 3
4
Acting Chair Lippert: And the Acacia Tower and you know I think it’s a lovely material. I think it 5
introduces one more element into the complex and maybe it’s not necessary. Maybe there’s one, 6
another material that you can use that you’ve already expressed. You know I really like your terra cotta 7
material. I know it’s expensive. 8
9
Ms. Young: It’s a rain screen wall and here’s the point, the rain screen wall is really for the living 10
spaces and this is more of a traditional wall. And the concept of the zinc shingle was just a very thin, 11
svelte, it’s just shedding water and that’s it. I think if we were to move away from zinc we would 12
probably move to one of the fiber cement panels; again to keep it neutral. The thing we just loved 13
about the zinc was the way it held the light and noted the stair towers as special elements. 14
15
Acting Chair Lippert: Right. The concern I have is that it’s such a monolithic strong element. 16
Normally you look at a tower and it contains the staircase. In this case the stair tower goes to the side 17
of it. If in some ways the stair tower wrapped that wall I would feel differently about it. 18
19
Ms. Young: Huh. 20
21
Acting Chair Lippert: You know what I mean by that? 22
23
Ms. Young: I do. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 52
1
Acting Chair Lippert: So if you had a wall and basically the stair tower is on both sides (interrupted) 2
3
Ms. Young: We actually looked at that and that was part of our early design and at some point during 4
the project we actually realized that we had an opportunity to again echo the design of the breezeway 5
where the new, sorry, where the concrete wall of the expansion was used as a means to cantilever the 6
glass ceiling. And so we were actually excited at the chance to be able to bring that expression back to 7
the new building with this stair tower with this expression of the cantilever helping to decrease the 8
deflection of the new stair tower. 9
10
Acting Chair Lippert: Right and I think that the opportunity here is by actually looking at that wall as 11
an element. You could actually then punctuate it at landings or along the way where people could 12
actually look through. 13
14
Ms. Young: There’s an elevator vestibule just inside that landing. 15
16
Acting Chair Lippert: Right. 17
18
Ms. Young: And we are looking at ways to, oh actually we do have a connection. There is, it’s not 19
properly documented in your set, but there is a third floor connection between, through this vestibule on 20
the third floor to get to the terrace and then the main stair on the other side. And we are continuing to 21
look for those opportunities. Thank you for reminding me about that. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 53
Acting Chair Lippert: Well this is a very exciting project and it has some very strong elements. I think 1
there’s other elements that need to be worked on. I think my colleagues here had said the landscape 2
plan really needs to be looked at and refined. 3
4
Ms. Young: Thank you. 5
6
Acting Chair Lippert: So with that any further comments? Randy? 7
8
Board Member Popp: I’m looking at A6.3. Sorry. I looked down and you sat down. On A6.3 this 9
entry wall section that you have where you’re showing the tapered deck, the edge of the balcony that is 10
looks like it’s a precast piece. 11
12
Ms. Young: Oops, not in here. Sorry. Yes. 13
14
Board Member Popp: And then the railing above it. And the precast piece and the railing above it are 15
let’s just say almost equal in terms of height. They’re almost equal in terms of height to the balcony 16
railing itself and yet when I look at your elevations what I see is a very thin edge to the cantilever deck 17
and then the railing is significant above that. And I’m just wondering is there an inconsistency in the 18
detailing or is this a specific location on the building that this is describing? 19
20
Ms. Young: It is a specific location. We are trying very hard to make the balcony projections the same 21
detail everywhere, but this particular location the structural engineer right now is telling us that we 22
need a heavier deeper beam at the perimeter. We’re obviously working with him to find ways to make 23
that more consistent. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 54
1
Board Member Popp: Is this all, so this is not all around the building? 2
3
Ms. Young: No. It’s just that one. In fact if you look at the 6.1 it should be a narrower, huh. 4
5
Board Member Popp: It looks like it’s virtually the same. 6
7
Ms. Young: It looks like it’s virtually the same. 8
9
Board Member Popp: When I look at 6.13 the rain screen wall section and I look at the proportion of 10
that edge to the balcony it’s more consistent with what I’m seeing on the elevations but still a little bit 11
heavier. 12
13
Ms. Young: Yeah. 14
15
Board Member Popp: I’m just thinking that somewhere between the elevation and the detailing there’s 16
a little bit of a disconnect here. 17
18
Ms. Young: Thank you. 19
20
Board Member Popp: Well, I’m not trying to pick on you. 21
22
Ms. Young: No, I mean honestly there’s a lot of coordination (interrupted) 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 55
Board Member Popp: I’m just trying to understand it. I think my feeling about this is that I very much 1
like this very thin deck edge and a very transparent railing. I think you’ve got enough materials going 2
on and being able to see through that to the building to me is nice and to have some material that covers 3
that if it was one material going all over the place would, wouldn’t reinforce that in the same way. And 4
I don’t believe you want to, was your thought that perhaps if I can summarize right if it’s a wood 5
railing that you’re suggesting be horizontal around the building would that go everywhere or would you 6
have a recommendation for different materials and different places to reflect the elevation that it’s in 7
front of? 8
9
Acting Chair Lippert: You know the issue on my mind is that I look at this and there are elements that 10
define specific areas of the building. When I say that there are themes; Equinox, the studio space is one 11
of the most dominate elements, the restaurant is the secondary dominant element. There is no 12
dominance to the portal or the entrance to the building. And then I look up above and I sort of look at it 13
and it’s all pretty much the same. And so what I’m looking for here is some way to define the upper 14
part of the building a little bit more. I don’t want the building to sort of fade away. I want something 15
that’s as strong as in Ken Hayes’ last project he had that C [sea? Not sure] element and there was sort 16
of like that missing story on the second, on the third floor. And this doesn’t have that strength on the 17
upper floors. And so for a mixed-use building of this kind I want to read the building. I want to say to 18
myself “Hmmm, this is retail. This is commercial. This is residential,” and I want to see that expressed 19
on the outside of the building in some way. And I don’t, I just I haven’t arrived at that point yet. 20
21
The other thing what I’m concerned about is the railing there. What’s going to be out there? Well, 22
people’s furniture, they’re going to put their little barbeque or hibachi, they might hang their laundry 23
City of Palo Alto Page 56
out there temporarily. You don’t know what’s going to go on out there. And so I want to be very 1
guarded about what you can see beyond that railing. That’s all. 2
3
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Can I, I’d like to add something through the Chair. Just there is 4
a requirement, I mean our Comprehensive Plan does acknowledge that there’s a lot of noise on El 5
Camino at 70 decibels (dB) and we try, we have a standard that we say try to get it down to 60 dB, try 6
to get it as close as possible for outdoor amenity space for multifamily. So I mean when we have a 7
clear, an open railing like that typically people need to come in and put plastic afterwards or whatever 8
that thick plastic to keep the noise down. So that should be considered as part of the (interrupted) 9
10
Ms. Young: Actually I think we’re required to meet the dB rating with the façade materials as opposed 11
to at the railing. And also one of the reasons that we’re choosing this is to, because it has acoustic 12
properties in breaking up the sound. 13
14
Board Member Popp: Amy? I’m sorry can I just ask Amy to clarify for me? So when you described 15
that requirement it sounded like you were specific about exterior open space having a certain level of 16
noise. 17
18
Ms. French: Yes. Yeah so it’s where the City determines that providing an LDN of 60 dB or lower 19
outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in the outdoor areas intended for recreational use shall be 20
reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. 21
22
Board Member Popp: I think there are two standards, one for the interior of the building… 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 57
Ms. French: Yes. 1
2
Board Member Popp: And one for the exterior open space. Ok. 3
4
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok, so any other comments? 5
6
Board Member Popp: I can craft a Motion. 7
8
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok, who would like to craft the Motion? 9
10
Board Member Popp: I can. 11
12
Acting Chair Lippert: [You can go for it.] Please. 13
14
Board Member Popp: Alright. Let me just ask the applicant briefly, you don’t have to get back up. I’m 15
going to recommend that we continue this to a next date. Do you have a date certain that you would 16
want to target or? Please. 17
18
Ms. French: I wonder if we should take this opportunity to talk about that 29th meeting. I don’t think 19
that happened, right? 20
21
Board Member Popp: We can do that quickly. 22
23
Ms. French: Possibly. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 58
1
Board Member Popp: Clare’s not here. 2
3
Ms. Young: We would very much like to come back on February 15th, two weeks, sorry, August 15th is 4
two weeks from today. 5
6
Board Member Popp: Ok. 7
8
Acting Chair Lippert: Do I have a second on that? 9
10
Ms. French: We would have the same concern as for the last project where we continued it to this date. 11
It’s very difficult, challenging to get everything in by Monday kind of thing, but we’ll see. 12
13
Board Member Popp: Then we’ll have a light meeting on that day. We’ll see. 14
15
Ms. Young: Consent calendar? 16
17
Acting Chair Lippert: I don’t think so. 18
19
Board Member Popp: I don’t think so. 20
21
Acting Chair Lippert: Sorry, thank you though. 22
23
MOTION 24
City of Palo Alto Page 59
1
Board Member Popp: Ok, so let me make a Motion that we continue this item to the August 15th 2
meeting consistent with the recommendations and findings that we’re presented with and in 3
consideration of the following nine items: 1) that the landscape plan be reviewed both for overall 4
design and way finding; 2) that the traffic ingress/egress points be evaluated carefully and understood 5
in relationships to deliveries, move in/outs, and visits; 3) that the open space for units be try to achieved 6
at all the units if possible; 4) that the balcony privacy walls and railings be reviewed and further 7
developed; 5) that within the conditions we include a requirement that the balconies have restricted 8
storage use; 6) that the Portage façade adjacent to where the trash wall area is be reviewed; 7) that 9
specifics for material placement be identified clearly on the drawings; 8) that the Acacia corner be 10
reviewed for design and potentially consider reorganizing the plan in that area; and 9) that the sidewalk 11
widths be reconsidered and evaluated consistent with some of the ongoing discussions and in particular 12
the current Council memo that is circulated. 13
14
Acting Chair Lippert: Do I have a second on that? 15
16
SECOND 17
18
Board Member Alizadeh: I’ll second that. 19
20
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok. I just want to say Ms. Young that this is a really wonderful project and that I 21
think that Board Member Popp’s comments and the items that he’s addressed are appropriate. This is 22
such an important project in Palo Alto that as I said it’s important that we get it right. I think it has the 23
ability to be the driving force of other mixed-use projects in this and I would really like to be able to at 24
City of Palo Alto Page 60
some point be able to cite this project and use it when we’re reviewing other projects in El Camino 1
Real as well as the Fry’s site. I think it’s really a wonderful project and so our, my criticisms here at 2
least are just in making sure that we get the best possible project. So thank you. 3
4
Ok, all those in favor say aye (Aye). Opposed? Ok, thank you very much. 5
6
MOTION PASSED (4-0, Chair Malone Prichard absent) 7
8
STUDY SESSION. 9
10
7. 250 Hamilton Avenue: Palo Alto City Hall: Request by Phil Ciralsky of the City of 11
Palo Alto Public Works Engineering for study session review of new exterior signage 12
for City Hall located at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Zone District: PF 13
14
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 15
16
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 17
18
Subcommittee Members: Naseem Alizadeh and Randy Popp 19
SUBCOMMITTEE: 20
21
8. Site Visit to see Cooper LED lights – Two different types of fixtures are located at Gilman 22
Street and Forest Avenue. 23
24
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 25
26
Project Description: Installation of one non-illuminated blade sign for San Mateo Credit Union 27
Applicant: Paul Maynes 28
Address: 616 Ramona Street (13PLN-00264] 29
Approval Date: 7/22/13 30
Request for hearing deadline: 8/5/13 31
32
Project Description: Replacement of glass façade, including sunshades, of an existing solarium on the 33
4th floor 34
Applicant: Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA 35
Address: 101 University Avenue [13PLN-00226] 36
Approval Date: 7/23/13 37
Request for hearing deadline: 8/5/13 38
39
Project Description: Installation of one halo illuminated wall sign 40
City of Palo Alto Page 61
Applicant: Melody Wuest 1
Address: 180 El Camino Real [13PLN-00224] 2
Approval Date: 7/23/13 3
Request for hearing deadline: 8/5/13 4
5
6
7
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to 8
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance 9
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) 10
or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. 11
12
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 13
54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 14
329-2571. 15
16
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after 17
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community 18
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal 19
business hours. 20
21
22
, CITY OF
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject,:
. August 29, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
3159 EI Camino Real [13PLN-00040]: Request by Heather Young of
Fergus Garber Young Architects on behalf ofPOliage Avenue Portfolio,
LLC for Site and Design Review of the proposal for the constlUction of a
new four story, 55 feet tall, approximately 74,122 square foot mixed use
building on a 1,6 acre site, with commercial and office uses and 48
residential apartment units, The project also includes Design Enhancement
Exceptions (DEEs) for height and build to lines and a Conditional Use
Permit. Zone District: Service Commercial (CS). Enviromuental
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the
project in accordance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board recommend City Council approval of the
project. The Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) will allow Council to approve the
, project, including the Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE).
(I) A Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with the California Enviromuental
Quality Act (CEQA);
(2) The Site and Design Review application for a new 67,506 s.f. mixed-use building (added to an
existing 6,616 s.f. building) on a 1.6 acre site (resulting in a total 74,122 s.f. of floor area on a
69,503 s.f. site, and FAR of 1.06: I) to provide 48 apartment units, including five Below Market
Rate (BMR) units, and office and retail uses, with structured parking facilities (at surface and
underground) providing 216 parking spaces (including I I puzzle lifts for 196 cars),
(3) Density Bonus concession permitting increased FAR for both residential and commercial
components of the project in the total amount of 4,619 square feet; and
(4) A Conditional Use Permit (to allow 16,118 sq. ft. of office space on one parcel where the limit
is 5,000 s.f.) recommended by the Planning and Transpoliation Commission on July 10,2013.
(5) DEEs for five feet of additional height, and alleviation of the build to line by two and a half
feet along POliage Avenue, resulting in a greater setback than minimum required.
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 1 of6
BACKGROUND
Process Histoty
Following the Planning and Transportation Commission's (Commission) review and
recommendation of approval on July 10,2013, the ARB heard the item on August 1, 2013. The
ARB recommended that the item be continued to a date certain of August 15, 2013 and requested
that the applicant consider the following items:
1. Review of the landscape plan for overall design and way finding;
2. ClarifY the traffic ingress and egress points and evaluate the locations carefully in relation
to deliveries, move ins and outs, and visitors.
3. Look at providing private open spaces (balconies) at all of the residential units;
4. Review the privacy walls and railings at the balconies and develop them further;
5. Include in the Conditions of Approval restrictions on the storage of items on the balconies;
6. Review the wall at the trash enclosure on the Portage Avenue side of the project;
7. Provide specifics for material placement, and clearly identifY these on the drawings;
8. Review the Acacia Avenue corner for design; consider reorganizing the plan;
9. Consider the sidewalk width along El Camino Real, relative to recent Council direction.
The August 15,2013 hearing deadline did not provide enough time for the applicant to prepare the
requested changes so the item was moved to August 29, 2013. Each of the nine items, requested
by the ARB, are covered in the discussion section below.
Project Description
The proposed project is 67,506 s.f. mixed use building which, when combined with the existing
6,616 s.f. Equinox gym annex located on the site, would result floor area to a total of 74,122 s.f..
The maximum height would be 55 feet above grade to allow for loft space in the fourth floor
residential units, as well as to screen mechanical equipment. At the ground floor level,
retail/restaurant/commercial recreation space is proposed, and the building setback on El Camino
Real would allow an effective 12 foot sidewalk width. A total of 48 residential apartment units
would be provided on four of the floors (second, third, fourth, and partial fifth floors). The
proposed loft spaces, accessible internally from fourth floor residential units, would have floors
below the ceiling level of the fourth floor units. Office space would be provided on portions of the
first, second, and third floors. Third and fourth floors are proposed above a portion of the existing
Equinox building at 3127 El Camino Real. The first and second floors would be separated across
the site by the existing Equinox building walls and by a courtyard proposed between the gym and
the new restaurant/retail space. The third and fourth floors across the site are mostly physically
separated (using expansion joints) except for limited hallway access, but would be visually
connected.
The building is proposed to have a wide variety of colors, finish materials, and textures. These
include board formed concrete, precast concrete panels, stucco plaster, cement composite panels,
wood composite panels, mate terra cotta rain screen panels, and grooved terra cotta rain screen
panels. In addition there are metal sunscreens, terra cotta sunscreens, steel and aluminum
windows, and painted steel guardrails.
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 2 of6
The project includes surface parking facilities and one level of underground parking facilities (13
feet below grade) for a total of 216 parking spaces, including 11 puzzle parking lifts. The building
would be constructed to displace one surface parking lot and reduce the size and cover another
surface parking lot on the site. The subterranean garage would counect to the existing below
grade garage on Portage Avenue (that serves tenants of 411-435 Acacia Avenue) at the south east
corner of the site. The main, finished garage floor level would be located below the existing site
grades, and three level car stackers would be installed in the garage. The lifts would extend
approximately six to seven feet below the main garage floor. Vehicular access to the site would
be provided exclusively on Portage Avenue via two curb cuts; all other existing curb cuts (on El
Camino Real and Acacia Avenue) would be removed. The parking spaces would be provided in
both the existing two-level garage on Portage Avenue, and in the new underground garage that
would be accessed from a below grade counection to the existing Portage Avenue garage. Fifteen
(15) surface-level visitor parking spaces are proposed beneath the residential wing of the proposed
building.
Site improvements such as landscaping, walkways, courtyards, and an outdoor dining terrace are
also included in the proposed project. The portico feature at the center of the project on El
Camino Real leads into a large courtyard area located in the center of the project, allowing
pedestrian movement through the project and through to the Equinox main entrance behind the
project and access to the surface level parking area at Portage Avenue. The courtyard area also
provides access to the elevator and stair core that provides access to the offices and residential
units above. The courtyard has a series of planters with Japanese maples and accent stones in
gravel mulch. Some of the planters have cantilevered benches for seating. There is also a water
feature at the end of the courtyard. A specimen ginkgo tree would be placed at the end of the
conrtyard close to the main equinox entry. Due to the fact that the entire project would sit above a
parking structure, landscape opportunities are somewhat limited. In addition to the courtyard
plantings the proposal does include some cast in place concrete planters as well as potted plants in
various locations around the site. There would also be three new street trees on Acacia Avenue
and one new street tree on Portage Avenue. The existing street trees around the perimeter of the
project would remain.
The proposal also includes five below market rate residential apartment units (10% of the total
units), allowing a concession under State Density Bonus Law for greater floor area than the
maximum allowable area, as well as fewer parking spaces than would otherwise be required.
Two DEEs are requested which are within the purview of the ARB. One DEE is a request for the
height of the residential loft spaces to exceed the 50 foot height limit by five additional feet. The
second DEE requests a relaxation from the build-to requirement along the Portage Avenue
frontage, resulting in a greater setback of seven feet six inches from the property line, rather than a
five foot setback. The DEEs are discussed in greater detail in the discussion section below.
DISCUSSION
As listed earlier in this report, the ARB had requested the applicant review the nine items and
continued the hearing to allow the applicant to address the comments. This discussion section
will cover the changes the applicant has made to respond each of the nine comments.
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 3 of6
Landscape Plan
The ARB did not feel that the proposed triangular planters and the proposed diagonal paving
pattern were consistent with the architectural design of the building. The applicant has modified
the landscape plan to eliminate the triangular planters and has replaced them with a series of
rectangular planters and a paving pattern that relates better to the architecture ofthe building. The
paving pattern has been modified to me more consistent throughout the project to improve the
way-finding. The new landscape plan is provided on sheets L-2.1 and L-2.2 of the plan set.
Site Access
The applicant believed that the issue for item #2 was vehicle queuing at the Portage Avenue
entries to the project and has provided a response in their letter related to that issue. Staff
believed that the ARB has requested clarification about how delivery vehicles, moving vans, and
visitors would access the site. The applicant will be providing a supplemental response to address
staff s perceived version of the question.
Private Balconies
The ARB requested that the applicant look at a way to provide a private open space to all the
residential units. Three of the 48 units did not have a private balcony. The applicant has
reconfigured the plan to add a private balcony space for unit 420 but was not able to find a way to
provide units 201 and 414 with a private balcony. A private balcony for unit 201 would block out
too much daylight at the restaurant entry facing the at-grade parking and placing a balcony in front
of unit 414 was not found to be architecturally desirable. The new floor plan layout with the
balcony for unit 420 is shown on supplemental sheet ARB-I.
Balcony Partitions and Railings
The applicant was asked to review the partitions and railings at the residential balconies. The plan
has been revised to include new privacy screens on the balconies between the units. Two different
systems have been developed, a frame and slat system for the balconies facing EI Camino Real
and a solid and translucent panel system for the Portage and Acacia balconies. The railings have
not been modified. The revised partitions are shown on supplemental sheet ARB-2.
Restrictions on Balcony Storage
The proposed balcony railings are very light and open, exposing them to view. The ARB
expressed concerns about the possible storage of items on the balconies that could result in an
undesirable visual impact. The applicant has proposed language that would be incorporated into
the apartment leases to prevent the storage of unsightly items on the private balconies.
Portage Wall at Trash Area
The ARB expressed concern about the Portage Avenue elevation where the retail space transitions
into the residential portion of the building. The applicant has revised this area. The trash and
recycling rooms have been separated into two separate rooms. This has allowed for a narrower
roll-up door facing the street for the recycling room, and the trash room opening has been rotated
to face the parking lot, no longer impacting the street view. The landscape planter has been
widened to provide additional landscape area on the building'S Portage Avenue frontage. The
applicant has also coordinated the size of the louvered vent at the second floor with the window at
the third floor such that they better relate to each other. These changes are indicated on
supplemental sheet ARB-3.
File Number 13PLN·00040 Page 4 0[6
Material Clarification on Elevations
The material notes have been coordinated and updated. See sheets A3.l, A3.2 and A3.3 of the
plan set.
Acacia Corner
The ARB requested that the applicant review and possibly reconfigure the Acacia Avenue/EI
Camino Real corner. The applicant has revised the corner by setting the commercial/retail space
back to open an additional pedestrian arcade to match the one at the restaurant. This opens up the
corner and creates greater unity of design across the project frontage with the repetition of this
pedestrian friendly feature. At the corner of EI Camino Real and Acacia, the building now "wraps
around" with additional glazed openings and a triple layer of sunscreens, to further engage the
street and provide visual interest. Some ofthe office space has shifted from the ground floor to
the second floor and a new 2nd floor balcony has been added on the Acacia elevation providing for
additional tenant and pedestrian connectivity to enliven the street. See supplemental sheet ARB-4
Sidewalk Width
The ARB had asked the applicant to consider increasing the width of the El Camino Real
sidewalk, in light ofthe recent City Council memo that calls for increased sidewalk widths for EI
Camino Real and other major arterials. The revised plan does.not show an increase in the width
of the sidewalk. However, there are changes in the revised plan that support and enhance the
pedestrian experience at the EI Camino frontage. The Acacia corner has been opened up with an
arcade, the stair to the open dining plaza has been moved £i'om Portage A venue to El Camino
Real, an additional seat bench facing EI Camino has been added, and a new pedestrian entry to the
restaurant has been added at the entry portal/courtyard area. These changes are shown on
supplemental sheets ARB -5 and ARB-6.
Additional Plan Changes
The applicant has made additional modifications to the plan in response to the ARB discussion at
the August I, 2013 hearing as outlined below:
• A doorway from the restaurant space has been added to the courtyard elevation to allow
access to the courtyard for dining tables that would help to enliven the space;
• The entry to the central elevator tower has been reoriented to be located adjacent to the
entry to the stair tower( see supplemental sheet ARB-?);
• The zinc panels, previously proposed for the Portage and Acacia stair towers, have been
replaced with cement composite panels from within the existing material palette (see sheets
ARB-8 and ARB-9);
• The openings into the Acacia stair tower landings have been enlarged and the landings at
the 3' and 4th floor landings are also now open on the courtyard side and the 3,d floor
terrace now connects directly to the Acacia stair tower (see sheet ARB-9);
• The Portage Avenue elevation ofthe residential units has been further developed to be more
consistent in the use of doors, windows, and sidelights (see sheet ARB-l 0);
• Following review ofthe overall color palette, the applicant has decided to change the
stronger red/brown color from the third floor to the fourth floor, which is setback further
from the street, to place the more neutral grey color on the third floor (see sheet ARB-II);
• The wood panel color for the central stair tower has been lightened up with a more open
grain pattern (see sheet ARB-l2).
File Numbe, 13PLN·00040 Page50f6
In the drawing packet there are supplemental images that compare the August I st version of the
plan, previously provided to the ARB, with the revised version noted as August 29th.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the project and the 30 day
public review and comment period began on May 31, 2013 and ended on July 1, 2013. The
environmental analysis notes there are a few potentially significant impacts that would require
mitigation measures to reduce them to a less than significant level. These include mitigations for
dust control during excavation, protection for nesting birds, building design for earthquake
resistance, basement shoring, a Health and Safety Plan for construction workers, a Remedial Risk
Management Plan, collection of additional soil samples, installation of a vapor barrier, vapor
collection, and venting system, third party inspection of vapor barrier and venting system, a
Groundwater Mitigation Plan, development of a Groundwater Extraction design, technical
documents uploaded to the appropriate agencies, and the evaluation and implementation of signal
cycle length optimization and reallocation of the green time.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Site Location Map
C. Zoning Compliance Table
D. Comprehensive Compliance Plan Table
E. Applicant's summary ofproject revisions*
F. Previous Staff Report, Planning and Transportation Commission, July 20, 2013
G. Previous ARB staff report, August 1,2013
H. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
I. Plans/supplemental sketches (ARB Members only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES
Heather Young, applicant
Portage Avenue Portfolio, owner
Prepared By: Russ Reich, Senior Planner f1il
Manager Review: Amy French, ChiefPlarming Official (]()
File Number 13PLN-00040 Page 6 of6
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
2
Thursday, August 29, 2013 3
SPECIAL MEETING - 8:30 AM 4
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5
250 Hamilton Avenue 6
Palo Alto, CA 94301 7
ROLL CALL: 8
Board members: Staff Liaison: 9
Clare Malone Prichard (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner 10
Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) 11
Alexander Lew Staff: 12
Randy Popp Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 13
Amy French, Chief Planning Official 14
Aaron Aknin, Interim Planning Director 15
16
17
18
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 19
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: 20
Announce agenda item 21
Open public hearing 22
Staff recommendation 23
Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. 24
Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) 25
minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. 26
Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments 27
Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes 28
Close public hearing 29
Motions/recommendations by the Board 30
Final vote 31
32
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the 33
agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must 34
complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural 35
Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. 36
37
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 38
None. 39
40
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA
City of Palo Alto Page 2
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional 1
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. 2
3
POSTPONED ITEMS: 4
5
405 Curtner Avenue [13PLN-00098]: Request by Salvatore Caruso on behalf of Zhen Zhen Li for 6
Architectural Review of a new 7,425 sq. ft., three-story building with six residential condominium units 7
on a vacant, 12,375 sq. ft. site. Zone District: Residential Multiple-Family (RM-30). Environmental 8
Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per 9
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. This item is postponed and will be re-advertised for the meeting 10
of September 19, 2013. 11
12
STUDY SESSIONS: 13
14
1. Downtown Context Discussion: Interim Planning Director will describe staff’s efforts 15
toward review of the downtown cap and parking issues. 16
17
2. Recap of ARB-Council Joint Meeting: Discussion regarding (1) Council’s August 19, 18
2013 directive to develop specific recommendations to address concerns regarding 19
sidewalk widths, and (2) modifications to the El Camino Real guidelines. 20
21
CONTINUED BUSINESS: 22
23
Major Reviews: 24
25
3. 3159 El Camino Real [13PLN-00040]: Request by FGY Architects on behalf of Portage 26
Avenue Portfolio, LLC for Site and Design Review of the demolition of x sq.ft. a new 74,122 27
square foot four-story mixed use project with 48 residential units. The proposal also includes 28
Design Enhancement Exceptions for height, and build to lines as well as a Conditional Use 29
Permit for the parcel to exceed the 5,000 square foot limit for office space. Environmental 30
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the 31
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zone district: Service Commercial (CS). 32
33
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok. So with that we will move on to continued business, major reviews: 3159 El 34
Camino Real. Request by FYG, FGY Architects on behalf of Portage Avenue Portfolio, LLC for site 35
and design review of demolition of a X square foot, a new 70. What’s X square foot? You’re supposed 36
to put a number in there? 37
38
Russ Reich, Senior Planner: I think it was the We Fix Macs store. Off the top of my head I’m not sure 39
what the number is. I think it was a few (interrupted) 40
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: It’s in the staff report. 2
3
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok. A new 74,122 square foot four story mixed-use project with 48 residential 4
units. The proposal also includes Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) for height, and build to lines 5
as well as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the parcel to exceed 5,000 square foot limit for office 6
space. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in 7
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The zone district: Service 8
Commercial (CS). And with that would staff like to introduce the project? 9
10
Mr. Reich: Yes, thank you. Good morning Vice-Chair Lippert and Board Members. The Board has 11
seen this project in its first formal review previously on August 1st. The Board had a number of items 12
that they wanted the applicant to come back with. They continued the item to August 15th, but it wasn’t 13
enough time to prepare so here we are on the 29th to review those items. I’m going to go ahead and list 14
the items that the Board had requested the applicant to come take a look at and come back with and 15
then just briefly describe how the applicant responded and then the applicant will go into much greater 16
detail about all the changes they’ve made since you last saw it. 17
18
So the Board had requested that the applicant review the landscape plan for overall design and way 19
finding. They asked that the applicant clarify the traffic ingress and egress points and evaluate the 20
locations carefully in relation to deliveries, move ins, move outs, and visitors. Asked that the applicant 21
look at providing private open spaces, balconies at all of the residential units; if you remember there are 22
48 units and 3 of them in their prior application did not have a private balcony. Review the privacy 23
walls and railings at the balconies and develop them further. Include in the conditions of approval 24
City of Palo Alto Page 4
restrictions on the storage of items on the balconies. Review the wall at the trash enclosure on Portage 1
Avenue side of the project. Provide specifics for material placement and clearly identify these on the 2
drawings. Review the Acacia Avenue corner for design and consider reorganizing the plan. Consider 3
sidewalk width along El Camino Real relative to the recent Council direction. 4
5
So the applicant has come back with a number of changes to the plan. They have redesigned the 6
landscape plan to better fit in with the architectural design. The triangles have been removed and we 7
have more of a grid pattern relating to the rectangular architecture of the building. Site access, they 8
talked about there was some confusion about what your comment meant. It could be on staff’s part, 9
could be on the applicant’s part, but in their response they talked about queuing at the Portage entries 10
and I believe they were going to go back and look at the questions about how deliveries and move ins 11
and things are handled. So they should cover that in their presentation. 12
13
The private balconies, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) had requested that the applicant look at a 14
way to provide those additional balconies for those three units. So they’ve taken a look at that and 15
we’ve got one, a new balcony at one of the units, but there’s still two units that don’t have a private 16
balcony primarily for architectural reasons in how it would impact the design of the project. They have 17
gone back and taken another look at the partitions between the private spaces on the balconies and have 18
redesigned the partitions that separate those. There will be a condition of approval related to what can 19
be stored on the balconies to prevent bikes and other things from being stored out there and creating 20
kind of a visual concern. 21
22
They have redesigned the wall on Portage where the trash enclosure used to be it used to be a very large 23
wide roll out metal door and they reoriented and kind of separated the trash such that the door is now 24
City of Palo Alto Page 5
facing, not facing the street and faces the surface parking area underneath the building so it’s less 1
visually intrusive and moved some of the recycling over so that there’s a very small roll up door 2
hopefully improving the elevation to your liking. They have clarified materials and coordinated those 3
items on the drawings. They’ve completely modified the Acacia corner. They have pushed back the 4
retail/commercial recreation space and created another arcade that echoes the original arcade on the 5
front of the building creating some additional depth and pedestrian interest at that corner. 6
7
The sidewalk width related to the Council memo. The applicant hasn’t adjusted the location of the 8
building relative to the sidewalk. It currently meets the zoning standard and there’s so many elements 9
in this project that speak to moving the building away so that you don’t have that large single façade on 10
El Camino that it wasn’t really necessary just to shove the building back because there’s so many ways 11
that the building actually does flow across the frontage where we have these two arcades where the 12
building is actually setback quite a bit further then from the curb. And there’s the raised plaza, there’s 13
the entry portico, and the upper floors are also setback so they didn’t feel the need to just shove the 14
building back. Hopefully they feel that with all the different design elements kind of creating a more 15
open and pedestrian friendly frontage that the project will meet with Council’s approval relative to their 16
concerns about sidewalk width. 17
18
There was a number of additional plan changes that were bulleted in the staff report beyond the items 19
that the ARB had asked the applicant to come back with relating to some of the discussion items the 20
ARB had talked about. There’s a new doorway in the restaurant space that actually opens up onto the 21
courtyard so that opportunities for dining and things to happen within that portico courtyard, not just in 22
the front of the project, but also continuing around to the courtyard side. The entry to the central 23
elevator tower has been reoriented and located adjacent to the stair tower. There was concern before 24
City of Palo Alto Page 6
that the entry to the stair and the entry to the elevator were so separate that people might be a little 1
confused so they tried to centralize that to help with way finding. 2
3
The zinc panels that had previously been proposed for the Portage and Acacia stair towers have been 4
eliminated. They are no longer going to propose that material and they’re going with the cement 5
composite panels that was already part of the existing material palette for the project. The openings 6
into the Acacia stair tower landings have been enlarged and the landings at the third and fourth floor are 7
also now open to the courtyard side and the third floor terrace now connects directly to the Acacia stair 8
tower. So at the previous hearing there was discussion about wanting to have some kind of visibility 9
through that element and so they’ve opened that up. The Portage Avenue elevation other residential 10
units have been further developed to be more consistent in the use of doors, windows, and sidelights. 11
12
The overall color palette the applicant team has decided to change the stronger red/brown color from 13
the third floor to the fourth floor, which is setback further from the street so it kind of reduces that 14
stronger color’s impression. Placed the more neutral gray color on the third floor, which actually helps 15
in response to the gray color of the cement that’s used on the first and second floor. The wood panel 16
color for the central stair tower has been lightened up with a more open grain pattern. So those are the 17
changes that the applicant has made and they’re here to kind of walk you through those and thank you 18
very much. 19
20
Acting Chair Lippert: Thank you very much Russ. Does the architect wish to make a presentation? I 21
think Russ has covered almost all your bases. 22
23
Heather Young, FGY Architects: Actually he has done a very thorough job of reviewing that. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
Acting Chair Lippert: You have 10 minutes ok. 2
3
Ms. Young: Thank you. Thank you very much. I’m Heather Young from Fergus Garber Young (FGY) 4
Architects. As Russ indicated we took the comments very seriously and have been able to make some I 5
think very positive changes to the project as a result of the observations and comments that you 6
provided. I am going to try and focus our discussion on those elements, but if there are other items that 7
you’d like to talk about we can always go back to that. And I would like to say that Gary Lehman from 8
Guzzardo, excuse me, Guzzardo Landscape is here and has also some information to share if you’d like 9
more in depth information there. 10
11
So, the first one was the landscape review. There had been comments about the potential for a stronger 12
connectivity between the landscape design and the building design and as a result Guzzardo has gone 13
back and revised the landscape design. Triangles are no longer a part of it and it is a more orthogonal 14
and rectangular approach, which again, I think he would be in an excellent position to discuss further. 15
16
There also were questions about traffic access to the site. And I do want to make sure that the e-mail 17
that we sent made it to you guys. Ok, great. Because again there was a misunderstanding as to what 18
the questions were. There are locations for daily deliveries from FedEx, United Parcel Service (UPS). 19
There are mail locations already established in the central tower and in the Acacia tower for United 20
States Postal Service (USPS) deliveries. Sorry. The issue of moving in and out there is an at grade 21
accessible ramp to an elevator off of Acacia and that serves all four floors. It’s, most of the residential 22
units are very small. We don’t anticipate large moving vehicles to bring people in or out of the 23
building. It’s possible to reserve spaces with a parking pass through the City here if there’s a larger 24
City of Palo Alto Page 8
delivery. There’s also an elevator connection in the below grade and there are some non-machine 1
parking spaces in that vicinity that could be used for ingress and egress through that central stair tower. 2
3
And the other question was about visitor parking and as I mentioned and I think we included also some 4
transcript notes, I hope we included some transcript notes from the Planning and Transportation 5
Commission (PTC) meeting. There’d been a lot of discussion about visitor parking and the 6
requirement for visitor parking is not part of this project because we do fall under the State regulation 7
for the parking assessment of the residential units, but because this is such a diverse community of 8
people and because there are already surface parking spaces for the commercial recreation, the retail, 9
the restaurant spaces, those actually serve as visitor spaces, especially during the evening and weekend 10
hours when those uses, commercial office, restaurant, and retail have a different time schedule. So we 11
think there’s adequate visitor parking. 12
13
The next question that you had regarded the balconies for all 48 units. As you know 45 of the 48 units 14
were provided with balconies, some of them quite luxurious balconies. We went back and looked at 15
the three units that did not have balconies and one of them had a building code issue regarding fire 16
separation and our attempts to provide that one with a balcony were not, they didn’t have the magnitude 17
that you needed for that location to make an impact. One of them on the second floor actually 18
would’ve blocked light and air into the restaurant entry off of the courtyard and we felt very strongly 19
that we needed to open that up as much as possible. And you’ll see in the fly through I think what we 20
were talking about. But thank you very much; we were able to reorganize these three units on the 21
fourth floor to this configuration. And so we were able to provide a balcony for one of the three units. 22
And we didn’t change the unit mix, it didn’t change the square footages, it was a really great win-win. 23
And you can also see from the plan it helped to make it more uniform. It cleaned up our corridor. As 24
City of Palo Alto Page 9
you know you’re moving along and things happen for reasons you’re not planning. So this was a great 1
chance for us to turn that into a really good opportunity. 2
3
Another option, issue that you asked us to look at was the residential balcony design. And it’s hard to 4
tell in some of the images, but you can see here there is a, this is from August 1st. There was a small, 5
solid panel design adjacent to the areas. We’ve been able to go in and open that up so that the top 6
portion that’s adjacent to the residences is going to be a semitransparent glass so you’ll have privacy, 7
but you’ll also not cut down on the light in the area. And I think I mentioned in the response that the 8
fire department is requiring some balcony to balcony access. So we do have lower panels at the 9
perimeter. Security is not really an issue. Anybody could climb around the railings if we want, if they 10
chose to. We’re really trying to integrate the partition design more with the wall design and to increase 11
privacy but not to inhibit light into the units. And there’s further examples of this on the El Camino 12
façade that you can see as we move through. I’m going to have to get bifocals soon. The balconies to 13
have restrictive storage; I think there’s a verbiage component in here which I hope will satisfy your 14
concerns there. 15
16
The next issue was the Portage service elevation, which you can see here. El Camino, Portage it’s 17
between the residential units, the entrance to the surface parking, and the double height retail and office 18
corner. At that time we had a wider, excuse me, a more vertically oriented window on the third floor, a 19
more horizontally and larger louver on the second floor for the mechanical, a pair of double doors for 20
the restaurant service, and then a very wide roll up door for the recycling and trash, and a small planter. 21
By working with the GreenWaste and Recology groups we were able to split that large trash recycling 22
room into two spaces and orient the trash off of the parking plaza so that the doorway is moved off of 23
the Portage elevation and we changed the double doors for service into a single door. That also 24
City of Palo Alto Page 10
allowed for a much wider landscape planter at grade. The louvers have been reduced in size and we’ve 1
reoriented the third floor windows to a more horizontal proportion that is in stronger agreement with 2
the design of the wall adjacent. They’re not fundamentally changing the design, but I think these minor 3
improvements do help the overall elevation in that area. 4
5
Acting Chair Lippert: You have one minute. 6
7
Ms. Young: Oh, ok. Material notes you can see the Acacia corner was rather a big issue. We were able 8
to setback the ground floor as Russ mentioned and create a double height arcade. Added more 9
sunscreens on the side. You can see the new perspective view with the setback here. You can also see 10
the color change from the red/brown on the third floor to the red/brown on the fourth floor and now the 11
gray on the third floor. You can also see we were able to add an additional balcony on the second floor 12
here increasing pedestrian and building relationships. There’s new openings on the third floor that 13
allow visual and on the third floor physical connection. Sorry, you can see that here with the new 14
rendering and the new balcony. 15
16
We’ve talked quite a bit about the improvements to the pedestrian access. It just goes on and on. I can, 17
we both just go on and on. I think the really important things are just to look very briefly at some of the 18
renderings and so you’re seeing the rendering for the dining terrace and the dining arcade. We 19
relocated the stair from Acacia over to Portage here. There’s now a seat bench in this area. Oh, sorry, 20
that’s a good one. You can see the landscape’s more orthogonal in its design. The new doors from the 21
restaurant to the arcade, the entrance into the lobby and elevator has been moved from here off of, to 22
the entry portal. Another perspective showing more of the life and activity there. The change of 23
materials on the stair towers. This is the previous courtyard elevation and the change here that you’ll 24
City of Palo Alto Page 11
see again on the terrace design with the screens, the lighter wood with a more open grain, which we 1
have a sample of here for you (interrupted) 2
3
Acting Chair Lippert: Why don’t you wrap it up? Do the fly through and wrap it up. 4
5
Ms. Young: Ok, here’s the fly through. More activity in the ECR portal. Stair tower slight redesign 6
there to have a better proportion for the double height ground floor space. You can see the screens on 7
the terraces as you roll around. The increase of the planter width and there’s a new little fence screen 8
along the dining portal there. You can see the roof screens on the terrace and as you come by you’ll see 9
the arcade, the new arcade on Acacia and the new balcony on the second floor. And there you are. 10
11
Acting Chair Lippert: Thank you very much for your presentation. With that what we’ll do is we’ll 12
open the public hearing. If there are members of the public that wish to speak to this item you may do 13
so at this time. Seeing none we will close the public hearing and we will begin with Board Member 14
Popp. 15
16
Board Member Popp: Terrific. Alright, well thank you very much. Appreciate all the time you put into 17
addressing the comments and the very detailed response makes it so easy to understand the process that 18
you went through and how you got to where you are and that’s very helpful for me. I’d like to see, if 19
you don’t mind I’d like to ask Mr. Lehman to come up and is there anything additional that you’d like 20
to share about the landscape plan that would be beneficial for us to understand. Give you a moment to 21
explain anything in there that you’d like to share with us because I think that was one of the focal 22
points of our discussion last time. It’s something I was concerned with so I’d love to hear what you’ve 23
got. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
Gary Lehman, The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc.: Thank you. I’d like to bring some materials up 2
(interrupted) 3
4
Board Member Popp: Please. 5
6
Mr. Lehman: That you may want to pass around a bit. 7
8
Board Member Popp: Alright. 9
10
Mr. Lehman: I think at its most basic high level is that we were looking for a stronger integration of the 11
landscape with the building, sort of working with the building geometry and looking particularly at the 12
building elevations and seeing how the planters, how the paving work in composition with the 13
windows. And looking for opportunities to be able to increase the inside/outside sort of relationship. 14
There was a central plaza space which, with the stair tower element, which is really quite beautiful and 15
we wanted to sort of use that as an inspiration for what we’re seeing actually on the ground plane and 16
within the fountain and the planter areas. So you’ll see that within the paving patterns there’s 17
connections that are made literally between the building elevation out into the landscape. 18
19
One of the key features, let’s see if I can navigate here… I can use this image here. One of the things 20
we found really interesting is that in the stair tower there’s a very strong column element that occurs 21
here that breaks up the window [at the side], creates a nice vertical accent piece and we sort of took that 22
as a band which went through the plaza through the redesigned fountain element here and actually we 23
were able to connect that all the way across to here. So it was a really nice unifying element that kind 24
City of Palo Alto Page 13
of drew that strong architectural piece and created a way of being able to help organize the landscape 1
design. 2
3
As Heather mentioned we’ve looked really carefully at how all these outdoor spaces are populated and 4
kind of again let the function of how these buildings will be used, how people will spill out and use 5
these spaces, and then kind of undulated the plantings through that, again taking our cues from the 6
existing building elevation or the new building elevation elements to be able to create a very simple but 7
organized and elegant treatment for the landscape design. The planters also serve as the primary storm 8
water treatment component so there was some good integration with how the civil engineer and the 9
architect are bringing the water down into the plaza so those planters were coordinated with those 10
efforts to make it quite successful. 11
12
You’ll see that we have the sort of patterns of paving here. The neutral colors, the pebble color, which 13
is sort of the beige color there, we have accent pavers they go through this area here so we’re picturing, 14
we’re not showing furniture right here. We know that that would be coming, but we see that as kind of 15
the primary sunny spot and that was kind of populated with these paving accent pieces to help kind of 16
create the community space and help define at along with the building volume that wraps around there. 17
18
The water feature itself is, has a water source here, which will animate and help provide some sound 19
within that space. The balance of the water wall will actually just cascade over that edge and will 20
create a focal point that you’ll see as you come through the building arcade and then it’ll also be an 21
element which you, helps to enhance the existing building entry experience here as well as being 22
something you see as you move around on the upper levels of the building here. So we kind of see that 23
City of Palo Alto Page 14
as a nice jewel within the center of the courtyard. Those are the primary things. I’d be happy to 1
discuss any questions you have. 2
3
Board Member Popp: That’s very helpful. Thank you very much. I think that there are projects that 4
come before us that are really challenging and there’s a lot of comment and discussion about them and I 5
think this is a really elegantly crafted and really well done building and the refinements that you’ve 6
added, these subtleties that have been adjusted here are something I’m comfortable with and I really 7
don’t have a lot of comment today other than to say that I appreciate the quality and the character that 8
you brought forward and I’m prepared to move this project forward today. So thank you. 9
10
Acting Chair Lippert: Board Member Lew. 11
12
Board Member Lew: So I did want to thank the applicant for making the changes. I think they are all 13
headed in the right direction. I think that the general [parte] of the building is good. It seems like it’s 14
compromised because of the existing Equinox building, but that’s where you are and very much 15
looking forward to seeing this whole new building being excavated around the existing Equinox 16
building. I think that’s going to be quite a sight. 17
18
I think generally the massing of the building is very good. I think there’s been a lot of criticism of 19
some of the recent buildings and this one I think is, you’ve done a couple of things that are good. You 20
have like the portal through the building, through the middle of the site. You also have the arcade and 21
then also your upper floors are stepping back and then also you’ve distinguished the residential from 22
the commercial. So you’re sort of making it look like, you’re breaking up the materials and the 23
massing so it looks like smaller chunks. It’s not quite so massive and blocky. And then I think the 24
City of Palo Alto Page 15
other important thing is all sunshades and your like railings and the balcony dividers also help give 1
articulation and definition. It also gives like shade and shadow on the building, which are really very 2
important. 3
4
I like the overall concept of your aesthetics. I think that the, that whole section, that part of town has 5
always been kind of a more industrial area because it used to be all like railroad sheds and the railroad 6
spur and everything. And it has kind of a different character than the rest of the town and I think that 7
you’ve picked up on that element, but you’ve also added like the wood panels and stuff to give it some 8
richness and to give it a little bit more character. And I think this is all really good. The, I think that’s, 9
yeah, it’s like a really nice balance between there and the palette looks great. 10
11
I did have a question for you, you do have stucco soffits and stuff like that. And I don’t, I didn’t look 12
really carefully, I don’t think I saw it there or maybe there’s a color chip or something but I was just 13
curious about all of those. Also all the undersides of the arcades and the underside of the portal, you 14
have the underside of the balconies I think is all stucco? 15
16
Ms. Young: That’s correct and there’s a color on there for the precast concrete and the thought is that it 17
would be a very similar value to that. So yeah, the one, that’s correct. 18
19
Board Member Lew: [Unintelligible] neutral. 20
21
Ms. Young: So you’ve got the precast concrete spandrels for instance at the perimeter of the balcony 22
and the soffit underneath it would be, it’s just from a construction standpoint we had to make that 23
transition. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
Board Member Lew: Right. So you’re not trying to make it different, you’re just trying to have it blend 2
in as best as it can? 3
4
Ms. Young: No, correct. Correct. 5
6
Board Member Lew: Thank you. Ok, so I have some, I have a whole bunch of detail questions though. 7
So for staff I did have a question about the acoustics. And so I know on other projects there’s been 8
issues on El Camino with residential private open space and sort of mitigating the noise of the street on 9
the private open space. And this, these guys have a mixture of like open balconies and then some are 10
like solid railings and so I was wondering what, what study was done there because I didn’t see 11
anything in the environmental analysis. 12
13
Mr. Reich: So it wouldn’t be part of the environmental because it’s not subject to CEQA, but in terms 14
of meeting the Comp Plan policy of trying to mitigate noise the applicant has, and they can probably 15
speak to it more eloquently than I can, but looking at the orientation of the balconies and the solid 16
nature of the flooring and how deep they are there may be if you’re standing right at the railing there 17
may be some noise issue, but obviously no matter how solid those were if you’re standing in front of 18
the railing the railing’s not going to block the noise. But as you move further back in these deep 19
balconies the noise levels coming from the street going up is hitting the underside and basically the 20
balconies themselves block the noise that comes up towards them. So because they’re so deep there are 21
spaces on the outdoor balconies that you do get that respite from the louder noise. I don’t know if 22
Heather wants to kind of go into any greater detail, but just looking at these it doesn’t seem like they’re 23
City of Palo Alto Page 17
going to be incredibly impacted by noise because of how deep they are. There will be areas on those 1
balconies that they’ll have kind of that quieter space. 2
3
Board Member Lew: Ok, great. Thank you. And then Heather was there any other thing, any other 4
thoughts about the open space? Great, excellent. Great. Thank you. 5
6
The I think the plan set at the moment really doesn’t have any even though you’re showing lots of 7
detail in the drawings we don’t have details. We don’t have window details. We don’t have any of the 8
sunshade details and I think you’ve got a number of them like on the corner of Portage and El Camino 9
you have sunshades in the arcade. And I’d be concerned about how those are coordinated with the 10
street trees and stuff, you’re looking, they’re projecting out. And I think it’s important to [project out], 11
but I’d be concerned about that with the trees. Also on the upper floors you have sunshade, various 12
sunshades and cornices. So we don’t have any details for those. Normally we look at, have some 13
details, we ask for details where there are big material changes or whatnot. And so also we don’t have 14
any lighting photometrics or cut sheets. And let’s see, and I think that’s all. 15
16
Oh, and then I think too, I think on some, like on important things like the portal, your main archway, I 17
mean on some other projects that have come through usually sometimes I’ve asked for like a reflected 18
ceiling plan where it’s really important like that’s the main entranceway and I just want to make sure 19
that all the that the underside of the building gets designed well too. And so we don’t have, I don’t 20
think we have anything. I think we just, it’s showing just [in section]. So maybe like a reflecting 21
ceiling plan there. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 18
On the landscape Gary I think I like the changes, all the changes that you’ve made. I think the paving 1
and the planting is all looking good. I would encourage you to maybe add one more layer of plants or 2
just a little bit more variety in some of the raised planters if you can. I don’t object to anything that 3
you’re showing, but like I’d just say like for example I think you’re showing like lavender in the 4
arcades in the planter there. To me like lavender is, looks great for a couple months, a few months of 5
the year and then the rest of the year the English lavender it’s not much to look at and that’s like right 6
on the sidewalk. I mean that’s probably the most public space where people are, the restaurant users 7
and the public are going to see it. So I would encourage you to either like balance it with other plants 8
that are similar to it or I’m not opposed to something that’s more high maintenance and high water use 9
plants there as either, either way. 10
11
But I think that the, like that particular location I think could be better and I think some of the other 12
ones I think like in the courtyard I think you’re showing like a Japanese maples and asparagus ferns and 13
I really like the choices that you made there. It’s like bright green contrasting against the gray palette I 14
think is really beautiful. I think you have like even more accent plants too. I don’t’ know if they would 15
do well with like the building drainage in there, but I’m looking at places like, I don’t know, what is it 16
800 High Street has, you know, near the Whole Foods, it has like very beautiful planters there [or if you 17
Carmel] you go there like just really very beautiful planting palettes. And I’m thinking of like along 18
that lines. It’s more high maintenance, I don’t know if the building owners are willing to maintain that 19
kind of level [of thing]. But I think I’m interested in seeing that because I think most of the trees that 20
you’re showing on the street trees are all deciduous I think. And so there’s a certain [unintelligible] 21
time of year where I really, all of those planters that’s going to be the only green around the building so 22
I think that they have to look great. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Also Gary on your previous scheme you had shown some vines, I think there’s like bougainvillea and 1
something else and then they’re not in this set of drawings. And I was wondering where were you 2
originally thinking about vines and where did they go? If it was an important, was there important 3
location? And I ask because the existing Equinox has vines growing along the Acacia side. They’re all 4
gone? And that’s a huge maintenance issue. Got it, ok. 5
6
Mr. Lehman: Yeah, I think we simplified and basically pulled the vine approach out because we’ve got 7
more detail within the planters themselves and as well as within the architecture. So we didn’t really 8
see a need to sort of hide or soften so much because there were some nice expressions going on in the 9
elevation so we were kind of good with that. 10
11
Board Member Lew: Ok. And then Gary like in your landscape images you’re showing a lot of things, 12
[a lot of] nice looking things that I’m not sure I saw them in the plans. But like light, you have like a 13
plaza light pole. And I was, is this like for the, were you thinking about like for the courtyard or is that 14
somewhere? 15
16
Mr. Lehman: That was for the courtyard. That’s right. We were looking at having a single light fixture 17
here that would be able to broadcast light into this plaza area as well as illuminate the fountain and 18
actually do a little bit of a wash on the building. Wherever we have planters we have the opportunity to 19
be able to do some subtle built in lights that would kind of give a flush of light at the base of the planter 20
walls, but in this area here that’s more open we… there we go. We’re thinking we could have a down 21
light sort of effect with sort of a recessed fixture that would both be non-glare that would also create 22
sort of theatrical feel within that plaza area. And as you mentioned that’s something that we could look 23
at photometrically and give you some more feedback on that. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think my, I mean I think the idea is great and I think my concern is that is 2
just yeah, the photometrics. Because it seems like the courtyard’s fairly small or it’s long and linear 3
and I would just be concerned just that if you have, with how that light works with the residence. 4
5
Mr. Lehman: Exactly. Yeah, we don’t want to have, we want to have a hidden light source 6
[unintelligible] the plaza just sort of glows without having glare. And the difficultly of showing any 7
sort of pole light is you’re saying “Oh, there’s this object” and looking at it critically it’s like well again 8
the intent really is for that to disappear and just to have the light come down. And so we’re looking to 9
have that down to the building metal colors and have it placed in a way that’s really appropriate relative 10
to elevation so that it becomes sort of non-element and the light just happens and it’s a beautiful, 11
beautiful space to be in because of how it’s lit. 12
13
Board Member Lew: Ok. Good. And then you have another detail, which has like a countertop, which 14
I think you’re showing is in the arcade, yeah. And I think you had a different version in your last set. 15
16
Mr. Lehman: That’s right. 17
18
Board Member Lew: Facing El Camino and I was wondering what, how does that work? And then my 19
question would also be is that, like I can see that being a nice thing [unintelligible] I mean depending 20
on the location and then I think about all the noise on El Camino then I think, I’m thinking are people 21
actually going to use it that way in that location? And then also I think you’re showing metal and then 22
I think some of the plans are calling out for wood and so I was wondering what your thoughts were 23
City of Palo Alto Page 21
about that and how it, how you integrate the planter with this counter in the arcade and how that all gets 1
(interrupted) 2
3
Mr. Lehman: Right, so this, in our previous submittal we had a different photograph, which generated 4
some conversation too, which caused us to think about well how would this actually be used and going 5
back to your lavender comment as well was that we wanted to have sort of short time duration bar that 6
would occur in the arcade facing El Camino. What we’ve done is we actually pulled that back a little 7
bit, set it back a little bit so it’s kind of inboard of the colonnade and then we’ve put the lavender 8
planter in the foreground of that maintain the full width of the sidewalk there because we didn’t want to 9
[capitalize] it with the sidewalk. 10
11
We, you’ll actually see it there’s a grading that occurs below the counter there. We’re thinking again 12
that was kind of a way to be able to sit at the counter and not actually have your legs in the lavender. 13
There is a grade differential that happens at that, in those locations and many of those spots. So there’s, 14
what we’ve done is we’ve sort of elevated that seating so that when you’re sitting down at that bar 15
height you’re more on an eye to eye level with the people who are walking by on El Camino, which we 16
think is a more comfortable relationship rather than sitting down below and having people look down 17
on you as you walk by. So we like that sort of elevated countertop kind of experience and then, and 18
you’re right, some people may not want to have that experience and that’s why we have the additional 19
seating that’s kind of off El Camino back against the building façade so we have the café seating there 20
and people can kind of choose which kind of experience if they want to have more of a people 21
watching, more of an engaged kind of experience they can be out there on the counter. If they want to 22
have a little bit more privacy or setback they can be against the building. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Board Member Lew: And is there a particular restaurant operator in mind for the location? Like I guess 1
is the bar counter really, you’re proposing this to be a permanent part of the building. 2
3
Ms. Lehman: Yes. 4
5
Board Member Lew: And then does that, is that working with the tenants? 6
7
Mr. Lehman: With the building program, that’s right. There’s intended to be food uses there. So that’s 8
what we were thinking. In terms of the materiality we were thinking about the countertop itself if it 9
would be wood or metal or some sort of composite material. We did want to have something that was 10
going to be pretty durable because we think that that will be a pretty high use area and we considered 11
doing wood, but we felt like that might be more of a maintenance issue and not quite so good from a 12
food service standpoint. So thinking either a metal or a composite type material that related more to the 13
concrete elements of the architecture would be most appropriate. 14
15
Board Member Lew: Ok. Yeah, I think wood is just too high maintenance for that location. And then 16
metal you have the issue, I mean it’s in the sun. So it’s an interesting, it’s an interesting issue. 17
18
Ok, and then maybe could you remind me of the grade change difference there at the arcade? I know 19
that the slight (interrupted) 20
21
Mr. Lehman: Sure. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Board Member Lew: I understand the general way the [slate is looping], but how much is there between 1
the arcade and the sidewalk? 2
3
Mr. Lehman: It varies. So it’s essentially what happens is is that the arcade area that turns in here 4
we’re level and then El Camino drops (interrupted) 5
6
Board Member Lew: Right. 7
8
Mr. Lehman: Comes down here and then so Portage down here is low. And so we have a stair that 9
occurs right here at the interface of the arcade and the dining terrace. And so there is a grade change 10
that occurs along this edge here. So rather than having kind of a lip there, that was another, having the 11
bar there was kind of a nice way of keeping that from becoming a tripping hazard. So we sort of dealt 12
with the grade either having it directly level coming in on the arcade or stepping up at the stairs down 13
here where there’s enough vertical to create a real stair that’s appropriate for that grade change. 14
15
Board Member Lew: Ok. So at the corner then it’s maybe what, like three steps? Or like two? 16
[Unintelligible] like about four steps? Like four, so it’s about 2 feet around, I mean just roughly. Less? 17
Ok. That’s fine. [Unintelligible] anything more than that, but I think that’s fine. 18
19
Mr. Lehman: And then we were able to incorporate a seat wall into this portion of this area here. We 20
were sort of looking for opportunities to be able to help activate El Camino without decreasing the 21
actual sidewalk width. So we were able to work the seat wall into that face and then there’s a sort of a 22
wood railing element that happens back at the dining patios so that there’s a nice separation there. So 23
City of Palo Alto Page 24
again if you’re sitting at that seat wall you’re not feeling like people are looking over your shoulder. 1
Just trying to make that as comfortable as it can be. 2
3
Board Member Lew: Great, thank you Gary. 4
5
Mr. Lehman: Sure. 6
7
Board Member Lew: and then Heather I just, one last question on or two, two questions for you. One is 8
I think we mentioned this last time, which was your typical balcony railing. Like it looks great in the 3-9
D drawings and I mean the detail is kind of, has a very heavy profile. Like it’s not, you’re trying a 10
tapering and I know it’s not quite as tapered because you have structure. I was wondering if you, I 11
realize that I mean you have to do what’s structurally necessary, but it seems like your that concrete, 12
the precast concrete piece could have more detail or something or shape or whatnot. And I was 13
wondering if you maybe if we, like you have to come back to us with like a lot of details and I was 14
wondering if you could show us that. So like I like the profile of that, but that’s, the detail was just 15
showing something much… 16
17
Ms. Young: A little deeper, yeah. 18
19
Board Member Lew: Much. It looks a lot deeper to me and I was just wondering if you could come up 20
with options for us for that. If you can’t get that, I mean that shape looks great to me, but it seems like 21
if you can’t get that with the detail, structural detail, which I’m seeing in here maybe there’s some other 22
options. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Ms. Young: We are challenging our structural engineer. You can see that there is a reveal in this larger 1
concrete band, and that reveal is a natural wrap that turns into a curb as you go onto the balcony. We’re 2
probably going to have, we definitely are going to have a construction joint at the bottom here where 3
the precast turns into a soffit material. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by options here, but we are 4
going to continue to try and refine it and coordinate with structure and obviously we’re trying very hard 5
to create this “Look Ma, no hands” cantilevered balcony effect. I mean there are no columns holding 6
these up. And as I said we’re pushing our structural engineer as much as we can. 7
8
Board Member Lew: Ok. No, I think that’s the right approach. 9
10
Ms. Young: Ok. 11
12
Board Member Lew: I would say if you, ok say worst case scenario if you’re actually have to build 13
what’s in your, what’s actually shown in the detail then I would want it just I think you should come 14
back to us with an accurate rendering because it’s a very big part of the aesthetic of the building. And I 15
think, I mean I think you should try to get as thin as possible, but if it’s I just want to say if it’s this 16
detailed then I want to see the renderings or at least one of the renderings updated to be accurate. 17
18
Ms. Young: I think that’s completely reasonable. I mean clearly there’s some other items that you’ll 19
want us to come back as with as conditions of approval and we welcome that opportunity to check in 20
and confirm that we’re still headed in the right direction. 21
22
Board Member Lew: Ok, and then I have two other things. Two last things. One is the colors and I 23
was wondering if you can put colored, like colored elevations in the set. Because I think that you’re 24
City of Palo Alto Page 26
showing us things here that aren’t in the set and I haven’t fully considered all the colors, I don’t object 1
to anything on the color board. I think it’s all handsome. 2
3
Ms. Young: Do most drawing sets include colors? 4
5
Board Member Lew: I think just like the overall color layout of where you’re putting all the colors on 6
the building. 7
8
Ms. Young: Like a block diagram? 9
10
Board Member Lew: Not necessarily a painting diagram, but I mean like as I look at it here you, we 11
don’t even really have the, you just have I think you’re just conceptually describing things and there’s, 12
but there’s no actual drawing that says this is generally the color scheme of the building. And that’s, I 13
mean that’s unusual. We usually have some colored rendering. Maybe not of every single façade, but 14
(interrupted) 15
16
Ms. Young: Ok. 17
18
Board Member Lew: Some sort of layout. I mean I don’t have, I think it’s kind of unusual for us. 19
20
Ms. Young: Ok. We actually one of the reasons that we focused so much on the perspective renderings 21
is because this is not a orthogonal, straight box and it’s very difficult to understand the relationships of 22
the material palette unless you see it in a more holistic manner. We’re happy to put together drawings 23
like that. I think these are actually much more helpful in (interrupted) 24
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
Board Member Lew: Well I do, I know, but it’s just we didn’t get any of this in our set. The image that 2
you’re showing right now I’ve never, this is the first time I’ve ever seen it. 3
4
Ms. Young: Oh, oh. I see. I understand. 5
6
Board Member Lew: Yeah. So that’s the reason why. 7
8
Ms. Young: Ok. 9
10
Board Member Lew: I mean you can take all of these images and just include it as part of the packet. 11
12
Ms. Young: Oh. 13
14
Board Member Lew: I think would be fine. If you don’t, that way you don’t have to produce anything 15
new. And I think all of these images are great. It’s just that I haven’t seen them before so I haven’t 16
really given them a lot of thought. Ah, they’re here. Where were they? They’re in the packet. 17
18
Ms. Young: Some of them were in that ARB supplemental package that addressed the nine issues point 19
by point. 20
21
Board Member Lew: Ah. 22
23
Ms. Young: Yes. Yeah. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
Board Member Lew: I did see those. 2
3
Ms. Young: And there was, I actually included an apology because the colors for there were 4
screenshots and they’re not as accurate as these are. 5
6
Board Member Lew: Yeah, because they came out so dark that I wasn’t really sure what I was looking 7
at. 8
9
Ms. Young: Yeah. We weren’t as happy with those either and actually that’s one of the reasons if you 10
look at the images that are on the wall those are not printed on the large format paper, they’re printed 11
on 11 by 17 and then attached to that. As you know the image the issue of reproduction is just, ugh. 12
13
Board Member Lew: No. Yeah, yeah. I know. I understand. I understand. Especially when you go 14
dark, you don’t get any subtly of that. 15
16
Ms. Young: No, or from one computer to the next. 17
18
Board Member Lew: Ok. Ok and then my last comment is signage. It looks like you’re trying to put 19
signage on the corner on the planters. 20
21
Ms. Young: We are I think very clearly noting those as not included in this permit. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Board Member Lew: I understand and I think the, I think on El Camino I think most tenants are going 1
to want to put something on the building. 2
3
Ms. Young: Depending on the tenant, but any tenant who requests signage is going to be informed that 4
it has to comply with the City of Palo Alto signing ordinance and that they have to work with the owner 5
as part of a holistic signage package. 6
7
Board Member Lew: I think that’s fine. And then I think my main point, I think I just want to make 8
one point is that the your corner, the glass corner on Portage and El Camino I think we have like lots of 9
Ken Hayes projects where it’s really hard for the tenants to put signs on the buildings. And I think that 10
this is a similar situation. 11
12
Ms. Young: Ok. 13
14
Board Member Lew: Where you have everything as glass and sunshade and then there isn’t really 15
anyplace for like a wall sign or anything. So I would just keep that in mind (interrupted) 16
17
Ms. Young: Ok. 18
19
Board Member Lew: When you’re doing that. So thank you for this. 20
21
Acting Chair Lippert: First of all I want to thank you for coming back, for taking our comments and 22
addressing them. I think you’ve done a really wonderful job here in terms of listening to what we had 23
to say and being flexible enough to incorporate those in. This is really a much tighter proposal that 24
City of Palo Alto Page 30
you’ve put together here. Some of the elements that I previously saw that appeared a little disjointed I 1
think some of my colleagues also saw that have been refined and address our concerns and based on 2
what I see here today it’s going to be very easy for me to go along with Board Member Popp in 3
approving this. So I just want you to know that I really appreciate what you’ve done and that because 4
of what you’ve done here it’s easy to approve this project. 5
6
There are a couple of issues that I wanted to bring up. First I did have some concerns regarding the 7
balconies and the slenderness of them and I think rethinking those in terms of them you’ve done a 8
really great job. I’ll tell you exactly where my concern was coming from. It took me a long time to 9
identify it. I drove around the Cal Ave. north of Page Mill Road area there and looked at balconies 10
with those apartments there because in some ways the configurations are very similar when you get up 11
above the first level. And a lot of those are really heavy balconies and I really like those. Where I was 12
reacting or coming from was at the building that Caffe Riace is in and that’s a very difficult building to 13
embrace. And so the slenderness of the balconies I don’t think is particularly successful with that 14
building and so that’s where that was coming from. It wasn’t just sort of taken from just thin air. I 15
think you’ve done a really great job with the balconies and I think that the railings and the way you’ve 16
expressed them it works particularly well. 17
18
I do have one minor concern and maybe it can be addressed and that’s the corner of Acacia and it, when 19
you get up to the second level there, yes, right there. That view there. You’ve got that knife edge 20
balcony to the, well you’ve got the two knife edges and they both go in different direction there. yet at 21
the top of the building you’ve taken a knife edge and you’ve sort of with the cornice have wrapped that 22
around the building there and then you have the sort of the lattice or trellis element that continues on 23
over the second floor of the Acacia units as you get further down the block. And what I see is that 24
City of Palo Alto Page 31
maybe there’s a way to take that trellis or lattice element and carry that between the second and the 1
third story there in terms of the bringing it around the corner and sort of finishing that element there. 2
And my concern really is more not just aesthetic, but it’s also from a functional point of view. You 3
know how are we shielding that because that’s the northwest sort of direction, the west direction and 4
it’s going to get maximum sunlight. You have any thoughts on that? 5
6
Ms. Young: Very interesting observation. We and it’s hard to really see in this image because it’s 7
cutting all of this off. We had really seen the transition from the more solid cornice element to an open 8
trellis as a transition from commercial office to residential. It’s one of our signifiers. This is a 9
particularly challenging corner because this is residential. And I, we’ve been playing a lot with this 10
transition from the beam to the cantilever and the beam to the cantilever and you’re absolutely right 11
there’s some not quite followed through logic happening in this intersection that we should look at and 12
think a little more about. There’s a lot of conditions on the building and so I agree. I think this could 13
bear with a little more thought and integration. 14
15
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah. I think that that’s, if it wasn’t such a prominent corner (interrupted) 16
17
Ms. Young: Yeah. 18
19
Acting Chair Lippert: You know it probably wouldn’t bother me as much. But it is one of the main 20
elements as to how you see the building as you proceed down El Camino Real in a southerly direction. 21
22
Ms. Young: Well and as you know I mean you’re all practicing architects. You know how this works. 23
You work on a design, you have multiple sources of contribution to the project that have impacts on the 24
City of Palo Alto Page 32
project and every time you go back to a certain area you have an opportunity to look at it afresh and dig 1
in a little bit more and see if there are more opportunities for refinement. And again that’s why we 2
were particularly pleased with the outcome from our last meeting is gave us a chance to go back and do 3
some little tweaks. And I think that’s part of the life of a project. Obviously what we’re really looking 4
for from you is the approval to move it on to that next step so that we can continue through our 5
entitlements process, not forgetting that this is imperfect and we’re constantly struggling towards a 6
higher refinement and a higher level of completion. But that’s a good point. We’ll continue to 7
[unintelligible]. 8
9
Acting Chair Lippert: The, I think continuing the overhang, the deck that you have around the corner of 10
the building is a little too much. 11
12
Ms. Young: Yeah. 13
14
Acting Chair Lippert: it would definitely be too much. The trellis element I think is about right, but 15
there are other solutions that you could probably come up with that would resolve that and it’s just 16
again if it wasn’t on such a prominent corner I probably would just sort of let it go at that. So that’s just 17
something to think about. 18
19
Ms. Young: Yeah, thanks for pointing it out. 20
21
Acting Chair Lippert: On the Acacia face by the way as you go further down I like the way you’ve 22
dealt with the transition there. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Ms. Young: Yeah. 1
2
Acting Chair Lippert: Rethinking that and the only thing that again bothers me a little bit is the 3
connectivity. How do you transition and go through the existing former Pet Food Depot to get to the 4
courtyard? I really want to go there from Acacia. It’s not possible. 5
6
Ms. Young: It is, but it’s not at grade. So for instance when you are at grade here you can see through 7
the glass breezeway and over the building. You could go up to the third floor and go right through that 8
portal and you would be on the courtyard side. So the building exists. You can go over it. You can see 9
through it and you can go in front of it. Actually you can go under it too, but that’s not going to 10
address your concern about being on Acacia. 11
12
Acting Chair Lippert: I have one last thought with regard to that because I know that I’m not going to 13
win on this, ok? And it’s relatively unimportant whether you actually go through that building, but 14
maybe to create and strengthen a back or side entrance to that building that comes off of Acacia. 15
Whether it’s used or not, not terribly important. It might even be used as an exit only, but the idea is to 16
create that visibility and to be able to create maybe between the Equinox building and the big Equinox 17
building and the smaller Pet Food Depot, former Pet Food Depot building, a side entrance there that 18
maybe might be as much as a pair of glass doors or something that allows you to see through. 19
20
Ms. Young: You currently can. They currently are glass doors that you see all the way through. Sorry, 21
it’s a glass, floor to ceiling glass area. You completely see through that, but your comment about 22
having more of a (interrupted) 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 34
Acting Chair Lippert: Connection. 1
2
Ms. Young: sense of entry, because this is an entrance, having more of a sense of entry again is a good 3
point. And we should think a little bit more about that as a message. There is a low wall here that is 4
intended as a signage opportunity. It’s low, it’s discrete, it’s at street level, but there could be a more 5
significant clue to it being an entrance in that area. You’re absolutely right. 6
7
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah. I guess where I’m going is I can’t have the actual connectivity, but I’d 8
like to have the visual connectivity though if that’s at all possible. It’s just where I’m going. 9
10
Board Member Lew: Lee could you clarify, are you actually saying there’s the existing glass 11
connection between the old Pet Food Depot and the big Equinox building or are you actually saying the 12
back of the Pet Food Depot building like a new, like within Equinox, within Pet Food Depot shell are 13
you actually saying you want something through? 14
15
Ms. Young: There is a 10 foot gap between Equinox, old Equinox and the Equinox on El Camino. 16
17
Acting Chair Lippert: Correct. 18
19
Ms. Young: The glass covered connection. 20
21
Acting Chair Lippert: Right. 22
23
Ms. Young: Completely glass. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
Acting Chair Lippert: Correct. 2
3
Ms. Young: Ok. 4
5
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah, I want more. 6
7
Ms. Young: More? 8
9
Acting Chair Lippert: More visual connection through that. 10
11
Ms. Young: Ok. 12
13
Acting Chair Lippert: In other words it’s blocked at the street. There’s no sense of entry there. 14
15
Ms. Young: That’s correct. There are plants proposed for that area. It’s proposed as a green zone. 16
17
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah I guess what I’m looking at is you have to sort of like zigzag through. 18
19
Ms. Young: Yes. We were challenged with the need for a transformer, which you can see here and the 20
desire to provide a pet friendly zone here and we were also challenged with some grade issues. The 21
floor of Equinox back here is approximately three feet higher than our grade conditions here. And we 22
tried to turn that into an opportunity to provide that pet friendly area and more grade landscape actual 23
landscape. I can appreciate that our solution doesn’t address all of your goals. I can appreciate that. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok. Ok, going around to the Portage side of the building I, oh, I’m sorry, let’s go 2
back to the El Camino Real. I like what you’ve done at the portal, above the portal how you’ve 3
reorganized the windows there. 4
5
Ms. Young: Which corner? The Portage corner or Acacia? 6
7
Acting Chair Lippert: I’m sorry, El Camino Real. 8
9
Ms. Young: Oh, sorry. 10
11
Acting Chair Lippert: I forgot that. 12
13
Ms. Young: I’ve got to get to the right spot. There. 14
15
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah. 16
17
Ms. Young: Ok. 18
19
Acting Chair Lippert: Right there. 20
21
Ms. Young: Yeah, we were very excited about bringing that terra cotta down and making it a two story 22
zone. 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 37
Acting Chair Lippert: Can you talk just talk a little bit about what’s going on above there? 1
2
Ms. Young: Well this again is that fire separation joint between the two buildings and so you’ve got a 3
third floor office and a fourth floor residential. There’s matte terra cotta, ribbed terra cotta, and matte 4
terra cotta again and you’ve got the concrete, precast concrete panel at the top and the bottom and then 5
you transition to the board form concrete and then the matte and ribbed gray terra cotta and then the 6
precast balcony and the terrace here for the offices and then the balconies and then the fourth floor 7
terraces for the residential. 8
9
Acting Chair Lippert: And how is that, how is the portal being lit? Can you go through that? 10
11
Ms. Young: There will be a number of down lights in the soffit. There will also be fire sprinklers. The 12
planters as Gary mentioned are great opportunities for some up lighting and one of the elements that I 13
think he described in the landscape plan was these darker elements are actually cubic seat stones. And 14
we’re looking at a detail where the bottom of the seat stone is also a glowing, a glow source for 15
lighting. 16
17
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah I’m not a really big proponent on down lights particularly in outside uses. 18
Is there a way to provide more up light either by, well let’s go back to the elevation you have. 19
20
Ms. Young: Sure. 21
22
Acting Chair Lippert: All the excitement on the face, on the El Camino Real face of the building 23
happens really out almost at the street façade. Out of the street area. Everything is proud. Remember 24
City of Palo Alto Page 38
we talked about this last time? And we were talking about this is an arcade very similar to and I think I 1
used the example of Vittorio Emanuele. Where this element I think falls short is that I want this to be 2
an exciting element to pull you through the building complex. And so with the down lights what 3
happens often times is you’ve got the recessed down lights and of course as you know the ceiling goes 4
dark. I think the opportunity here is to have some sort of element either floating in there that up lights 5
or to begin to get something on the walls that focuses up so that you get a more of an even illumination 6
as you transition through that space. The reason I’m saying this is that we’re looking at this as being an 7
accessory space for the dining and for people to congregate and hang out. At nighttime the sky is dark, 8
this pulls you in at night and then when you get on the other side there because it’s an open courtyard 9
again that would be dark sky. So I’m looking at some other element in here that’s going to just like just 10
pull you right in off of El Camino Real. 11
12
Ms. Young: Those are good observations. We’ve been focusing on three elements: the succulent wall 13
at the very end, the epay tower here, and then the glass stair circulation tower there and your far 14
distance to bring you all the way into the courtyard. But I think what you’re addressing, which is very 15
interesting is a more short term focal point and having an element in this area that provided an 16
opportunity to create evening illumination and also to provide that short term attraction before you 17
reached these goals that are in the courtyard I think that’s a good observation. 18
19
Acting Chair Lippert: I’m going to ask my colleagues here, we have a short board here, which requires 20
that we all be present during the public hearing. I have a family emergency. If we could take a five 21
minute recess I would really appreciate it. 22
23
BOARD TOOK A BREAK 24
City of Palo Alto Page 39
1
Acting Chair Lippert: [starts in progress] information on that, that element. Let’s go around to the 2
Portage side. I think what you’ve done with regard to the roll up doors there and the ramp there I think 3
is really great. It really cleans up that area. It was a little disjointed. I like what you’ve done on the 4
second floor there in terms of the louvers and bringing them down to the same opening as what’s up 5
above. It bothers me a little bit that the roll up doors offset and the other door is offset but not as much 6
as what you had previously. So I think that this is a big, big improvement. 7
8
Mr. Lehman could you just talk a little bit about your fountain? Fountains are I think very interesting 9
elements. 10
11
Mr. Lehman: I’d love to. If I could bring a couple more images up to be passed around? So what we 12
see is the fountain is sort of this linear bar that has this one focal point in it where the water would be 13
elevated and we would have a change of material, actually I’m going to step up to the dais. Thank you. 14
So we’re thinking that the majority of the fountain is done in this smooth polished material and that the 15
water source, the cube that is shown on [axis] with that paving band would be this brushed material so 16
that that vertical face would trace and come up and down picking up with the movement of the band 17
and that we’re looking, we’re exploring the possibility of actually incorporating this type of material 18
into that band. Right now we have it shown as an interlocking paving stone with a dark charcoal color. 19
In a perfect world we’d love to be able to afford to do this and take this material all the way across so 20
we’re sort of exploring that. So the idea is that the, so that the bar is wet continuously across the top. It 21
has some very subtle water jets that water the entire length of the bar and then there’s one point where 22
the cube occurs where the water is raised up and that’s where you get the animated sound and that’s 23
where the material change occurs. So I think it’s a really fun piece. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
Acting Chair Lippert: So to get the idea it’s only a water surface, it’s not a, there’s no depth to the 2
water? 3
4
Mr. Lehman: The pool is very shallow, yeah. No more than an inch except for at the place where the 5
more activated water surface is and then it would be set down a little bit to contain the water. So 6
there’s a little bit of a repeal that happens at the more activated water source, but the rest of it is more a 7
reflecting pool that then sheets down the vertical face. 8
9
Acting Chair Lippert: And where does it, does it sheet down all the way around? 10
11
Mr. Lehman: All the way around. That’s right. 12
13
Acting Chair Lippert: All the way around. So it’s going to appear as a water cube? 14
15
Mr. Lehman: It will (interrupted) 16
17
Acting Chair Lippert: Or a water rectangle? 18
19
Mr. Lehman: It’ll be more like this except for rather than having this [cosseted] façade here it would be 20
smooth with the polished surface going down the vertical face. So it’s a very quiet kind of piece here 21
and then the simple activated water at that one cube. 22
23
Acting Chair Lippert: Very exciting piece, and then the water would disappear at the [unintelligible] 24
City of Palo Alto Page 41
1
Mr. Lehman: Drop down into the cobble and then it’s recirculated underneath. Yeah. 2
3
Acting Chair Lippert: So there’ll be pebbles at the base just like you’ve got here? 4
5
Mr. Lehman: Yeah. So you’ll have a, this shows a very narrow cobble, that cobble will be wider, will 6
pick up on what’s happening in the planters as well. 7
8
Acting Chair Lippert: Great. Very, very exciting. I think it’s going to be a very successful piece. And 9
I think this is great. I’m going to support the project. Do we have a, you have some additional 10
comments here? Ok, one more comment Board Member Popp. 11
12
Board Member Popp: So Gary thank you very much for sharing the extra images of the fountain. 13
Based on the image that was in the package I was satisfied, but now that I’ve seen that I have a 14
comment for you about that and that is that the grout lines that I’m seeing between the joints of the 15
panels that are on the top are very distracting and what’s beautiful about this is this very smooth surface 16
of water with just the ripples and it’s black on black and it’s very elegant and sleek. And the version of 17
it that you showed us is not so much. And I think if you’re going to do that the grout should really 18
match the material rather than contrast. 19
20
Mr. Lehman: It’s a good comment. I think that’s what we’ll do. 21
22
MOTION 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 42
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok, so with that I need two things. I need to have a Motion to make a 1
recommendation and then also we have to act on the DEE. So do I have a maker of the Motion? 2
3
Ok. I will give this a try. I will move to approve recommendation of the project as proposed and my 4
elements that I think should return to subcommittee are simply on the Acacia side the continuation of 5
the shall we say trellis or… well, it’s not really cornice. It happens midlevel so it’s a how to continue 6
the, the element around the building. The projecting element around the corner on Acacia. 7
8
Board Member Lew: Could you clarify that’s the second one? It’s actually the third floor? 9
10
Acting Chair Lippert: It is the third floor, but it’s the second floor of the elevation there because it’s a 11
commercial project. It’s a two story commercial building or is it a one story? 12
13
Ms. Young: At the corner it’s a double height space. 14
15
Acting Chair Lippert: Right, that’s what I thought. 16
17
Ms. Young: But when you go further down it’s four floors. 18
19
Acting Chair Lippert: Right. And what I’m talking about is it’s above the double, the double height 20
space. Between the double height space and what we would consider to be the third floor. How do we 21
continue (interrupted) 22
23
Ms. Young: Continue? 24
City of Palo Alto Page 43
1
Acting Chair Lippert: Go to the other view from El Camino. 2
3
Ms. Young: Oh the El Camino side. 4
5
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah. Right there. 6
7
Ms. Young: Right here? 8
9
Acting Chair Lippert: No, the next. 10
11
Ms. Young: Right there. 12
13
Acting Chair Lippert: Yeah. 14
15
Ms. Young: That. 16
17
Acting Chair Lippert: It would be between the third and fourth floor? 18
19
Ms. Young: It’s the fourth floor, articulation of the fourth floor slab as it hits the perimeter wall. 20
21
Acting Chair Lippert: Well, we’ll capture it. Thank you very much. 22
23
Ms. Young: Ok. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 44
1
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok. So that needs to be looked at. The second element is at the El Camino Real 2
portal the lighting in that area. And then those were my only comments. I think that you’ve done a 3
great job. I need a second on that. 4
5
SECOND 6
7
Board Member Popp: I’ll second it. 8
9
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok. Any other comments or concerns? 10
11
Ms. French: Would you mind referring to the record of land use action that’s attached? 12
13
Acting Chair Lippert: Oh, I’m sorry. 14
15
Ms. French: And the findings therein for the DEE. 16
17
Acting Chair Lippert: Well, that’s, do you want us to do that separately? 18
19
Mr. Reich: I think in your Motion you just need to recognize that the Motion includes the two DEE’s. 20
You don’t need to do the DEE’s as a separate approval. 21
22
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok. So included in my (interrupted) 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 45
Mr. Reich: [Unintelligible – talking over]. 1
2
AMENDED MOTION 3
4
Acting Chair Lippert: Motion includes the record of land use as well as the Design Enhancement 5
Exception. Is that ok with you Mr. Popp? Please say yes. 6
7
Board Member Popp: Yes it is. 8
9
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok. Any discussion? Ok with that we will vote on this. All those in favor say 10
aye (Aye). Opposed? 11
12
Board Member Lew: Me. 13
14
Acting Chair Lippert: Ok, so that goes down its 2-1 and one abstention and one absent. Thank you 15
very much. 16
17
MOTION PASSED (2-1-1-1, Board Member ______ absent, Board Member _____ abstained) 18
19
Ms. Young: Thank you very much. 20
21
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 22
23
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 24
25
Subcommittee Members: Lee Lippert and Randy Popp 26
27
City of Palo Alto Page 46
SUBCOMMITTEE: 1
2
4. 537 Hamilton Ave [13PLN-00087]: Request by Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects, on behalf of 3
Smith Equities III LLC, for review of minor changes related to the sun shades and wall opening 4
adjacent to driveway, for a previously approved commercial project in the CD-C(P) zone 5
district. STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 6
7
Project Description: An existing utility pole mounted AT&T cross connect box to a ground mounted 8
location within the public sidewalk 9
Applicant: Nestor Mauricio 10
Address: 2287 El Camino Real [13PLN-00330] 11
Approval Date: 8/21/13 12
Request for hearing deadline: 9/3/13 13
14
Project Description: Landscape modifications which include removal and replacement of 19 15
Designated trees 16
Applicant: JC Miller 17
Address: 1101 Embarcadero Road [13PLN-00276] 18
Approval Date: 8/22/13 19
Request for hearing deadline: 9/4/13 20
21
Project Description: Removal & replacement of one tree to allow for a new pedestrian accessibility 22
path connecting city sidewalk to the building 23
Applicant: Scott Hutter 24
Address: 3172 Porter Drive [13PLN-00318] 25
Approval Date: 8/22/13 26
Request for hearing deadline: 9/4/13 27
28
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to 29
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance 30
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) 31
or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. 32
33
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 34
54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 35
329-2571. 36
37
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after 38
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community 39
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal 40
business hours. 41
42
43
Attachment M
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and COJpmunity Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Site and Design Review of the demolition of two existing
commercial buildings (at 3111 and 3159 El Camino Real, comprising 6,616 s.f.) and the construction of
a 69,503 s.f. building (net gain of 62,887 square feet of new floor area) to establish a 49-6" foot tall, 4-
story, 46-unit apartment building, with commercial, office and retail uses with underground parking
providing 223 parking spaces including parking lifts on a 1.6 acre site located at 3159 El Camino Real.
Zone District: Service Commercial (CS).
1. PROJECT TITLE
3159 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94306
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Margaret Netto
Contract Planner, City of Palo Alto
650-617-3137
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Heather Young
81 Encina Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94402
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
13-PLN-00040
6. PROJECT LOCATION
3111-3159 El Camino Real
Palo Alto
Parcel Numbers: 132-38-32, 35, 65 and 66
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of Interstate 280. The project site has
frontage on State Route 82 (El Camino Real), Portage A venue to the southeast, Acacia Avenue
to the northwest and a developed commercial property to the northeast.
To the north of the site is surface parking, across EI Camino Real to the east are restaurants
(McDonalds and Fish Market), across Portage StreeUo the south is a retail (Footlocker) and
office building, and across the alley to the east is retail (Fry's Electronics).
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration
(
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The General Plan designation for this site is Service Commercial, per the Pal\> Alto 1998 -2010
Comprehensive Plan. The Service Commercial land use designation allows for facilities
providing citywide and regional services and relies on customers arriving by car. Typical uses
encouraged in this district include auto services and dealerships, motels, appliance stores and
restaurants. Within some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be appropriate in this
land use category. The proposed mixed-use development within this section of the City is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to provide residential and mixed-use.
8. ZONING
The project site consists of four parcels having approximately 1.6 acres (69,696 square feet)
which will be merged under a separate application. The parcd is zoned CS (Service
Commercial) and is regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMe) Chapter 18.16.
Commercial development on the project site is subject to the development standards, review
process, and context based design criteria established for mixed use developments within P AMC
Chapter 18.16. The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and
procedures established by other relevant chapters of the Zoning Code apply. Mixed-use is a
permitted land use in the service commercial (CS) district.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project at 3159 EI Camino Real is the demolition of two existing commercial
buildings (at 3111 and 3159 EI Camino Real), totaling 6,616s.f., and the construction of a 49-6"
foot tall, 4-story, 46-unit apartment building, with commercial, office and retail uses totaling
62,887 square feet of new floor area. The project includes underground parking facilities (13
feet below grade) providing 223 parking spaces including parking lifts. The four story building
would be constructed over a portion of the below grade garage footprint in the southwest comer
of the site, near E1 Camino Real and Portage Avenue intersection. Third and foUrth story
additions are also proposed above the central portion .of the existing building (3127 E1 Camino
Real-Equinox Fitness Gym) at the site. A second four-story building would be constructed over
the below-grade garage in the northwest comer of the site. The upper two floors of the three
buildings would be connected. The building would be occupied by residential apartments on the
second through fourth floors, office space on the third, and recreational, restaurant, retail spaces
on the ground level.
A single level of below-grade parking garage would be constructed beneath the majority of the
site. The subterranean garage would connect to the existing below grade garage on Portage
A venue at the south east comer of the site. The main finished garage floor elevation would be
below the existing site grades, and car lifts would be installed on the southeastern half of the
garage, which would extend approximately 6 to 7 feet below the main garage floor.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Primary access to the site would be provided from Portage A venue with secondary access from
Acacia Avenue. Vehicular parking is provided in the existing two-level garage on Portage
A venue, to be supplemented by a new underground garage that would be accessed from the
below-grade portion of the existing garage. Surface visitor parking is proposed beneath the
residential wings of the building accessed from Portage Avenue and Acacia Avenue. Site
improvements related to the mixed use project, such as site landscaping, driveways, at-grade
parking spaces, and walkways, would be constructed as part of the proposed project.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project site is located on the south frontage of El Camino Real, one block south of the El
Camino Real and Acacia A venue intersection and one block north of the El Camino Real and
Lambert Avenue intersection.
The property is located across El Camino Real from two restaurants (McDonalds and Fish
Market). To the north, across Acacia Avenue is surface parking, to the south across Portage
Avenue is retail (Footlocker) and office use and east is retail (Fry's Electronics).
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
California Department of Transportation, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) and the Office of the County Clerk-Recorder.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EV ALUA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
[A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards. (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site ,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has detennined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
. mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the detennination is made, an EIR is required. /:, t ,
\ .
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an'
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3)
(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead ll:gencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur
if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the
answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the
basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential
significant impacts are included.
A AESTHETICS .
. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? 1,2,6 x
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Wonld the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor? 1,2,3,5,6 x
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1,2-
a state scenic highway? MapL4;6 x
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,6 . x policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or 1,5,6, X
nighttime views in the area?
f) Substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent
1,5, x
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is not located within a major view shed. The project would not substantially damage
scenic resources within a state scenic highway and does not violate any existing Comprehensive Plan
policies regarding visual resoUrces.
The project is subject to review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), Architectural
Review Board (ARB) and City Council approval; the Site and Design Review approval findings and
ARB approval criteria and findings are designed to ensure an appropriate site layout and architectural
design, including landscaping that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings. The
mixed-use project is designed to meet development standards (PAMC 18.\6.060), Context Based
Design Criteria (PAMC 18.\6.090), and observe the concepts set forth in the EI Camino Real Design
Guidelines. The guidelines and context based design criteria in the zoning code are currently under
Council consideration as to whether the building setbacks and sidewalk widths specified in the zoning
code and guidelines are desirable going forward, given the Grand Boulevard Initiative document
advising 18 feet of sidewalk width along EI Camino Real.
The height of the development is 49-6" feet, measured to the top of the parapet meeting the 50-foot
maximum allowable height limit for theCS zone district. The proposed rooftop light monitors and
mechanical roof screen would exceed the 50-foot height limit, none would be taller than 63'-5" these
projections above 50~feet are monitors that would provide lighting to the interior of the fourth floor
residential units. Inserting the light monitors between the required roof screens provides a consistent
horizontal element at the roof top where an assortment of mechanical screens would be located, resulting
in a streamlined profile. Section 18.40.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code permits this type of height
exception so long as it does not extend IS-feet above the 50-foot maximum height limit. However these . ,
are considered habitable floor areas and would require a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). The
roof screens and light monitors enhance the overall aesthetics of the building.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The mixed-use design incorporates an articulated building base, body and roof. The exterior finish
materials would be simple forms of concrete and steel to evocate the industrial character of the
neighborhood. The color scheme employs medium neutral tones as a base, with deeply saturated accent
colors to highlight certain areas. .
The redevelopment of the site may result in a negligible increase in light and glare generated frolll the
additional lighting of the site and glazing on the building. With the City's standard conditions of
approval, the light and glare impacts of the project would not be significant. The conditions of approval
would require the shielding of lighting such that the light does not extend beyond the site, is directional,
and that the source of light is not directly visible.
With the required site and design review process, which includes the architectural review process, and
proj ect compliance with the applicable zoning standards, context based criteria and design guidelines,
the proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or
its surroundings, therefore no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure:
None
B AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1,2,3,5
Monitoring Program of the California X
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-Map L-
use, or a Williamson Act contract? 9,3,5 X
Involve other changes in the. existing
environment which, due to their location or 1,2-MapL-
nature, could result in conversion of 9,3,6 X
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide
Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by
the Williamson Act. Consequently, the proposed project would have no impact on agricultural resources.
Mitigation Measures:
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration
(
None
C . AIR QUALITY .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
. Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
IncorDorated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,2,5,6
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Ak Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected ak 1,2,5,6
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1,2,5,6 X
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tous per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter ofless than 10
microns in diameter (PMlO);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,2,5,6 X
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour (as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,2,5,6 X
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels I
oftoxic air contaminants? X
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the I
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) X
exceeds lOin one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations ofnon-I
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the (i I () (;
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
e)
g)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
MEl
. Create objectionable odors affecting a I X
substantial number of neon Ie?
Not implement all applicable construction I
emission control measures recommended in the X
Bay Area Air Qualify Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on air quality. The project may result in
temporary dust emissions due to construction activity. The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as
follows:
Long Tenn Impacts: Long-term project emissions primarily stem from motor vehicles associated with
the proposed project. As discussed inthe Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study, the project
would generate additional vehicle trips and one intersection would be impacted but can be mitigated to
less than significant. However, the change of land use will not have an impact on the surrounding area
because of the anticipated increase in the volume of traffic that is expected within the project area
regardless of the project being built or not. The mixed-use development is a pennitted use for the site
and will not affect a substantial number of people which would be limited to other commercial uses and
pedestrians in· the immediate vicinity. Long-term air-quality impacts are expected to be less than
significant.
Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be more adversely affected by
air quality problems. The proposed project will be located in a mixed area consisting of retail ,
residential, and commercial uses. Although sensitive receptors are in the immediate vicinity of the
project, the construction impacts would be addressed as standard approval conditions, resulting h~ a less
than significant impact to sensitive receptors.
On-site Impacts
As described in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, a Phase I and Phase II was prepared
which indicates that the project site is in an area where there is known contamination of the soil and
groundwater with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Because of this contamination, the proposed
project, which includes residential uses, would be at potential risk for vapor intrusion to the building.
VOCs can disperse easily into small air spaces in soil and underneath structures, such as through
foundation cracks, holes in concrete floors, and small gaps around pipes and utility lines. Some vapors,
such as VOCs, may enter structures aflow contamination levels, and building ventilation systems are
used to prevent hannful vapor buildup. VOCs mayor may not have a noticeable odor and may be
present at levels posing acute or chronic health risks.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration
c·, ,,{
Of
According to the EPA, steps can be taken before site redevelopment to prevent vapor intrusion. I Some
examples of prevention include ensuring that VOc. contamination is removed from the site (and sent to a
proper treatment and disposal facility); preventing upward contaminant migration with an impermeable
barrier such as a clay cap; and venting soil gas to outdoor ai,r before it can reach indoor spaces. At sites
where the source of contamination cannot be completely eliminated through removal, other solutions to
vapor intrusion problems can be implemented. Building techniques that serve to provide a vapor barrier
between interior spaces and soil (or groundwater) can be combined with structures that provide an
escape route for soil vapor to vent to the atmosphere rather than into indoor air. Some ventilation
systems operate effectively without the use of energy (passive systems), while others may need
cormection to a power supply (active systems). It should be noted for indoor air quality monitoring that
the presence ofVOCs in indoor air may not necessarily be a result of vapor intrusion because there often
is a background or pre-existing level ofVOC contamination present from chemical use in the building or
from ambient air. As such, it is often difficult to distinguish between contamination attributable to vapor
intrusion and contamination from background levels.
As noted in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, the proposed project
would implement Mitigation Measure H-5, which would require the inclusion of a full vapor barrier and
the installation of an active vapor collection and venting system underneath the building to mitigate
potential soil vapor intrusion, and a monitoring plan to verify positive air flow and monitor for VOCs.
Implementation 0fMitigation Measure H-5 would reduce the potential for on-site impacts from VOCs to
on-site residential and commercial uses to less than significant.
The project would be subject to the following City's standard conditions of approval:
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust
related construction impacts:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet
of freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept
and watered daily.
• Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a
demolition permit.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil,material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Mitigation Measures C-I: The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally
elevated levels of particulate matter downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the
potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This impact is considered potentially significant
but normally mitigable by implementing the following control measures:
During demolition of existing structures:
Environmental Protection Agency "Design Solutions for Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Air Quality," on~line at http://www.epa.gov/
swerospsfbfJfacts/vapor _intrusion,pdf (accessed December 12, 2008)
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Water active demolition areas to control dust generation during demolition and pavement break
up.
• Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
• Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into ttucks whenever feasible.
• During all construction phases:
o Pave, apply water 3x1daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
o Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously
graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
o Enclose, cover, water 2x1daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand, etc.).
o Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
o Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
o Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
The above measures include feasible measures for construction emissions identified by the BAAQMD
for large sites. According to the District threshold of significance for construction impacts,
implementation of the measures would reduce construction impacts of the project to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measures: See H-5 under Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional 1,2-x plans, policies, or regulations, or by the MapNI,5
California Department ofFish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? .
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, 1,2-
policies, regulations, including federally MapNI,5 x protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or 1,2-x migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapNl,5
of native wildlife nursery sites?
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration
I
/
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
d)
e)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,3,5, x
Palo Alto's Tree preservation Ordinance
(Municioal Code Section 8.10)1
7,8
Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2,3,6, x
re"ional, or state habitat conservation DIan? 7,8,
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat fot the
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals,
insects and plant species have been identified at this site. The project site is located in an established
commercial urban setting.
The Comprehensive Plan includes policies, programs and implementing actions to ensure the
preservation of biological tree resources. The following policies and programs are relevant to the
proposed Project:
• Policy N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo. Alto's urban forest.
• Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to provide
street trees and related irrigation systems.
• Program N-16: Require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development.
• Program N-17: Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of
trees.
Palo Alto's Regulated Trees
The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for
the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and pennitted by
the City's Planning or Public Works Departments. Three categories within the status of regulated trees
include protected trees (PAMC 8.1 0), public trees (PAMC 8.04.020) and designated trees (PAMC 18.76,
when so provisioned to be saved and protected by a discretionary approval.)
Palo Alto Municipal Code Tree Preservation Ordinance
Chapter 8.10 of the Municipal Code (the Tree Preservation Ordinance) protects a category of Regulated
Trees, on public or private property from removal or disfigurement. The Regulated Tree category
includes:
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Protected Trees. Includes all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak trees 11.5 inches
or greater in diameter, coast redwood trees IS inches or greater in diameter, and heritage trees'
designated by the City Council according to any of the following provisions: it is an outstanding
specimen of a desirable species; it is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; or it possesses
distinctive form, size, age, location, andlor historical significance.
• Street Trees. Also protected are City-owned street trees (all trees growing within the street right
of-way, outside of private property)
• Designated Trees. Designated trees are established by the City when a project is subject to
discretionary design review process by the Architecture Review Board that under Municipal
Code Chapter IS.76.020(d)(1l) includes as part of the findings of review, "whether natural
features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project." Outstanding tree specimens
contributing to the existing site, neighborhood or community, and that have a rating of "High"
Suitability for Preservation as reflected in Table 3.6-1 would constitute a typical designated tree.
Palo Alto Tree Preservation Guidelines
For all development projects within the City of Palo Alto, discretionary or ministerial, a Tree Disclosure
Statement (TDS) is part of the submittal checklist to establish and verifY trees that exist on the site, trees
that overhang the site originating on an adjacent property, and trees that are growing in a City easement,
parkway, or publicly owned land. The TDS stipulates that a Tree Survey is required (for multiple trees),
when a Tree Preservation Report is required (development within the dripline of a Regulated Tree), and
who may prepare these documents. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual2 (Tree Technical
Manual) describes acceptable procedures and standards to preserve Regulated Trees, including:
• The protection oftrees during construction;
• If allowed to be removed, the acceptable replacement strategy;
• Maintenance of protected trees (such as pruning guidelines);
• Format and procedures for tree reports; and
• Criteria for determining whether a tree is a hazard.
There are six street trees that would be impacted by the proposed underground parking. Some of the
trees will likely need to be cut for the underground parking to be installed. The arborist report identifies
protection measures to be incorporated in the plans to reduce the potential impact on public trees. These
include root removal during the winter, protective fencing, mulching, irrigation, and guidelines for tree
protection zone setback clearances for buildings and grading, above ground measures for walkways,
structures, landscaping and flatwork.
2 City of Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, June 2001. Provided on line at
http://www.cityofpaioalto.org/environment/urban canopy. asp
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Nonetheless, the proposed project could result in disturbances to nesting birds in these trees. Nesting
birds, their nests, and eggs are fully protected by the State Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5)
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Destruction of a nest woulll be a violation of these
regulations, and would be a significant impact. The magnitude of impact would depend on the species
affected.
Mitigation Measures B-1:
The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game
Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal Register (Vol. 70,
No. 49; March 15,2005).
Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting
birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site. To protect any nesting birds, the proposed
. project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, a qualified wildlife biologist (to
be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA andlor
Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the vicinity of the project site. This
survey shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction.related activities during
the nesting period, and shall include a "buffer zone" (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds
of the proposed project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her
professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat.
This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior' to the commencement of
construction activities. The wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly detailing the
findings of the survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the
City and the City has authorized in writing ·the commencement of construction activities in accord with
the biologist's findings.
E CULTURAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,2-
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
MapL-7 x
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,2-x
pursuant to 15064.5? MapLS
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2-X
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration
(" . , I .',
I 'l , .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
d)
e)
f)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
geologic feature? MapLS
Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-.
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapLS X
Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
eligible for listing on the National andior X California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2-
Historic Inventory? MapL7
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1
of California history or prehistory? X
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone.
Most of the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although existing and historic
development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites
could be uncovered in future planning area construction.
The project would entail excavation of one level of parking to a depth of 15 to 22 feet below grade. The
project site is to be developed with underground parking. If archaeological materials are discovered the
applicant would be required to perform additional testing and produce an Archaeological Monitoring
and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of construction. The City's standard
conditions of approval will address this potentiality.
Mitig!ltion Measures:
None
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or s!mctures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of See below
loss, il1iury, or death involving: .
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-X
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area 2-MapN-
or based on other substantial evidence of a 5,5
known fault? Refer to Division ofMines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN-
10,5,9 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? 2-MapN-X
5,5,9
iv) Landslides? 2-MapN-
5,5,9 X
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? 1,2,5,9 X
Result in substantial siltation? 1,2,5,9 X
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unStable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, 2-MapN-X
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 5,5,9
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or 2-MapN-X
property? 5,5,9
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not 1',5,9
available for the disposal of waste water? X
Expose people or property to m,yor geologic
hazards that carmot be mitigated through the 1,4,5,9 X use of standard engineering design and seismic
safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan the project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an
earthquake or in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced
landslides. Based on the engineering analysis in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Murray
Engineers Inc, the site is not located in an area considered susceptible to earthquake liquefaction. There
are no active or potentially active faults across the property, therefore no fault rupture would occur on
site. Since the subsurface condition is not susceptible to liquefaction because the soil is not silty sand
saturated by groundwater. The site would not be subject to lateral spreading and or seismic settlement if
the recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by Murray
Engineers Inc. are followed.
Development of the proposed project would be required to confonn to all requirements in the Uniform
Building Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all buildings
includes provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. The primary
geotechnical constraints to the development are the presence of moderately shallow groundwater
(relative to the planned basement excavation depths), the highly expansive nature of the near-surface
soils, the site's seismic setting, and the City'S guidelines eliminating the use of subsurface drainage in
relation to all basement construction.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The excavation for the 13 to 20-foot deep (to floor elevation) below grade garage would likely extend to
depths on the order of 15 to 22-feet below existing site grades, in some cases near or immediately
adj acent to existing buildings and street sidewalks. Therefore, to mitigate the issue of differential
settlement and potential impacts on these structures, the basement excavation would need a well
designed shoring system to be designed. The groundwater level is expected to be typically in order of 17
to I8-feet below existing grades. Therefore, because at least portions of the basement excavation would
extend below the estimated ground level, dewatering by the contractor will likely be necessary to control
groundwater during construction.
Based on Murray Engineers Inc. investigation, the site appears to be blanketed by stiff to hard and
medium dense to very dense alluvial soils to the depth explores at 46.5 feet. The alluvial soils should
provide adequate support for the new foundation proposed.
Substantial or permanent changes to the site topography are not expected. Standard conditions of
approval require submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the project for approval by the Public
Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading,
drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected
to avoid any grading-related impacts.
All earthwork and site drainage, including foundation and basement excavations, retaining wall backfill,
preparation of the sub grade beneath hardscape, placement and compaction of engineered fill, and
surface drainage should be performed in accordance with the Geotechnical Report prepared by Murray
Engineers, Inc., dated March 12, 2013.
Mitigation Measures F -1: The design of all buildings shall be designed in accordance with current
earthquake resistant standards, including the 2007 CBC guidelines and design recommendatiOlis
regarding the potential for localized liquefaction presented in the Geotechnical Investigation provided by
Murray Engineers.
Mitigation Measure F -2: Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall submit a well-designed
shoring system for the basement excavation to be designed by a licensed engineer subject to review and
approval by Public Works Department.
G HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incornorated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use, X
or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,5,16
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the X
release of hazardous materials into the 1,5,16
environment?
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 17 Mitigated Negative .Declaration
(
c)
d)
d)
e)
f)
g)
I h)
i)
Emit hazardous emissions o~ handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or X
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,5,16
pronosed sChool?
Construct a school on a property that is subject X
to hazards from hazardous materials 1,5,16
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
Be located on a site which is includee! on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant X
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,2-
result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN-9,
the public or the environment? 5
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or X
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in 1,2
the nroiect area? .
For a project within the vicinity ofa private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the 1,2 X
proiect area?
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response . 1,2-X
plan or emergencv evacuation nlan? MapN-7
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland I
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X
urbanized areas or where residences are 2-MapN-7
intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment from existing hazardous materials 1,5,11,16 X
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emission of
hazardous materials. The project is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. The proposed
project would not interfere with either emergency response or evacuation. The project site is not located
in a designated fire hazard area. The new construction and site design shall be required to comply with
the City'S building permit approval standards and fire equipment and fire protection coverage standards
as conditions of project approval prior to the issuance ofa building permit.
The property is not currently listed on any commercially available database, or on the Santa Clara
Valley Water District or Water Board databases, as having a release of hazardous materials or
documented contaminants. Several vicinity properties are listed as having reported releases of hazardous
materials or documented environmental contamination. Based on the location, it is likely that a
groundwater plume underlays the property. The site is documented to be contaminated by VOCs,
primarily trichloroethene (TCE). The groundwater contamination is referred to the Califomia-Olive_
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration
rl , f
Emerson plume (COE) based on the city streets that bound it. The COE Study Area has a long (since
1981) of investigation and remediation by the responsible parties (HP and Varian). Both HP and Varian
agreed to accept financial responsibility to investigate and remediate the plume, and the Water Board is
providing regulatory oversight of the monitoring and cleanup action.
Stellar Enviroumental Solutions, Inc. conducted a Phase 1 of the subject site. During the course of this
assessment, Stellar Enviroumental identified several potential environmental concerns with the
development of the site: 1) Ensuring that the excavated soils are appropriately disposed of based on soil
sampling and profiling; 2) Evaluating the impact of dewatering during the deeper car lift machine
excavation areas that will require construction phase discharge of groundwater; and 3) Assessing the
potential for soil-vapor intrusion through the collection of site specific soil gas data collected at the base
of the area [above groundwater] of the excavation.
Soil samples results show minimal concentrations of any environmental concern and those that were
reported appear to be naturally occurring or de-minimus. No VOCs were detracted in any of the 12 soil
composite samples collected. Diesel and oil range petroleum hydrocarbons detected in soil composite
samples collected for this investigation are at non-hazardous concentrations, with only chromium and
lead (Pb) in one sample .that showed concentrations above the 50 mg/kg requiring a Waste Extraction
Test (WET). The WET analysis showed no soluble concentration of concern, confirining the non
hazardous nature.
Stellar Environmental concludes the soil shows no contamination of environmental concern and can be
disposed of offsite as non-hazardous to a regulated landfill placed on the dirt reuse market if an infill
area accepts the analytical profiling completed to date. The detected VOC contamination in the
groundwater shows TCE concentrations at the de-minimus levels consistent with the distal area of the
HP plume. The soil-gas is the one media showing significant concentration variations in the four
samples with one of the four samples showing a concentration of TCE and PCE above regulatory
guidance. The elevated TCE and PCE soil-gas can be mitigated during the excavation phase because the
base excavation depth is below the clay-rich cap that traps the soil-gas.
Mitigation Measures H-l: A project specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and a Site Mitigation Plan
(SMP), would be implemented, and adhered to during construction and excavation activities. All
workers on site should be read and understand the. HASP and SMP, and copies should be maintained on
site during construction and excavation at all times.
Mitigation Measures H-2: A Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP) should be developed and
followed by current and future owners, tenants, and operators. The plan will include the implementation
of the described remedies and engineering design.
Mitigation Measures H-3: Additional collection of four soil samples at the site should be completed
after the base excavation to 14 feet bgs is achieved. This soil-gas collection will verify if the removal of
the clay cap has resulted in a reduction of residual soil gas below the residential ESLs. Current PCE and
TCE concentrations in soil-gas are one or two orders of magnitude greater that what would be expected
to accumulate based on current groundwater concentrations of PCE and TCE, and would not be likely to
reach the current concentrations in the future if the reduction of groundwater contaminants continues as
it is expected to.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures H-4: If soil-gas concentrations collected following the initial base excavation
, phase have not resulted in significant decrease, a sub slab passive vapor collection and passive vapor
collection and passive venting system designed full vapor barrier would be implemented to mitigate
against the identified VOC soil-vapor intrusion (see Mitigation Measure H-5 for vapor intrusion
mitigation system).
Mitigation Measure H-5: Prior to issuance of the occupancy permit the applicant shall file
documentation from im independent' consultant specializing in vapor mitigation system design and
installation for final approval by a third party inspection service reporting to the City financed by the
applicant confirming that each component (collection pipes, transmission pipes, inlets, risers, vents, etc.)
of the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) has been installed in accordance with recommendations
of the Vapor Mitigation System and Monitoring Plan, and includes the installation of a full vapor
barrier, which shall be a 60-mil thick, spray applied membrane below elevator shafts, stairWells, pipe
chases, and entire floor slab, as part of the active vapor collection and venting system (i.e., driven by
electric fans at the effluent end of the VMS riser pipes enhanced by outside air entering through inlet
vents) to be installed in the building to mitigate potential soil vapor intrusion.
Mitigation Measure H-6: A Groundwater Mitigation Plan shall be provided for lowering ground water
levels during the excavation phase that may reach depths to 22-feet bgs which is about 4-feet below the
expected level of first encountered groundwater. The mitigation plan shall specify the number of
groundwater dewatering wells with dedicated pumps to be installed around the site perimeter throughout
the project duration. This plan shall be prepared and submitted for final approval by the City's Public
Works Department prior to issuance of City permits.
Mitigation Measure H-7: A detailed groundwater extraction design shall be developed including a
staging plans for dewatering system, including all required chemical testing, dewatering systems layout,
well depths, well screen lengths, dewatering pump locations, pipe sizes and capacities, grades, filter
, sand gradations, surface water disposal method, permitting and location. This design shall be prepared
and submitted for final approval by the City'S Public Works Department prior to issuance of City
permits '
Mitigation Measure H-8: This and future technical reports should be uploaded (as required) to the
appropriate regulatory agencies-including uploads to the SCCDEH's ftp system and the State Geo
Tracker system.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1,2,5 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration
I" i .
\ "-, ," ,
in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production 2-MapN2
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have X
been Rranted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the .
alteration of the course ofa stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial X
erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,5
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
ofthe site or area, including through the
alteration of the course ofa stream or river, or ,
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,2,5 X
iu flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or plarmed
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted . 1,2,5 X runoff?
f) Otherwise substantiaiiV dwade wateraualltV? 1,2 X
g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? 1,2-Map X
N-6,5
h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect 2-MapN6 X flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a 2-MapN6
levee or darn or being located within a IOO-year N8
flood hazard area?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6, X . N8
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,2-X
MaoN6,9
DISCUSSION:
Construction of the proposed building and related site improvements would not result in an increase in
the amount of'impervious surface area on the site. The site is entirely paved with asphalt. Stormwater
runoff is currently conveyed from the site via curb street gutters to the paved parking areas, where it
runs to the street and ultimately discharges into the San Francisco Bay. As previously referred to in the
Geology, Soils and Seismicity section of this study layers of moderately to highly plastic fine-grained
alluvium and medium dense to very dense coarse-grained alluvium.
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge and will.not deplete the groundwater
supplies. The project site is located outside of the I DO-year flood hazard area and would not impede or
redirect flood flows. The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
With the City's required conditions of approval the water impacts of the project will not be significant.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements that are applicable to the proposed project are
established in the Water Quality Control Plan for San Francisco Bay (Basin Plan) prepared by the
RWQCB in compliance with the federal CWA and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ,
and the NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB in accordance with the Clean Water Act, which
incorporates Basin Plan objectives. All point and non-point discharges (including urban runoff) must
comply with the identified water quality objectives and the concentrations of contaminants in the
discharges must be controlled, either through NPDES permits or waste discharge requirements. Two
components of the proposed project are subject to separate NPDES requirements: construction and
operation. Although the RWQCB is ultimately responsible for ensuring discharges from development in
the City comply with conditions in the permits, which are summarized below, the City of Palo Alto is
required by the terms of its NPDES Municipal Permit to review and regulate stomiwater discharges
from development sites.
During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Standard conditions of
architectural review approval would require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara
Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program, and submittal of a stormwater pollution prevention
plan (SWPPP) in conjunction with building permit plans to address potential water quality impacts. The
City requires the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by the NPDES Construction
General Permit be reviewed by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Overseeing conformance to the SWPPP is the responsibility of the Public Works Department, or a third
party hired by the Public. works Department, at the owner's expense, that specializes in the monitoring of
activities related to water quality and water discharge requirements.
If contaminated soils were found, the soils would be managed appropriately by segregating them into
separate piles in a designated area onsite and covering the piles with plastic sheeting until additional
testing was completed. The stockpiles would be managed in accordance with the SWPPP and the SMP.
This would reduce the potential for soils (regardless of whether contaminants are present or not) to be
washed into storm drains and enter the creek. To prevent cross-contamination', construction equipment
. and transportation vehicles that contact exposed native soils would be decontaminated prior to leaving
the site. Wash water from decontamination would be collected and managed in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations and monitored by trained personnel. The stored water would be sampled
for chemicals, the results of which would determine how the water should be disposed. The water used
for on-site dust control would have to meet NPDES permit requirements for such use and for any
subsequent discharge to the storm drain. If the water were found not to meet the permit requirements it . ,
would either be treated on-site or removed. In either case, no discharges to the storm drain exceeding
adopted standards would be permitted. This measure would reduce the potential for contaminants to be
transported off-site and possibly enter runoff from roadways, and would ensure proper disposal.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Implementation of the required NPDES SWPP as monitored and enforced during construction would be
compliance with storm water quality standards. City development standards and standard conditions of
project approval would reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
None
I LAND USE AND PLANNING .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Poteutially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact-
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1,2,3,6,II
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community 1,2 X
conservation plan?
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,6,11
intensity of existing or planned land use in the -X
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,6,II
the general character of the surrounding area, X
iucluding density and building he~ht?
f) Conflict with established residential, 1,2,6,1 I
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific X
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2,6
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to X
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project at 3159 EI Camino Real is the demolition of the two existing commercial buildings
(at 3111 and 3159 EI Camino Real) for the construction of 62,887 square feet of new floor area to
establish a 49-6" foot tall, 4-story, 46-unit apartment building, with commercial, office and retail uses
with underground parking facilities (13 feet below grade) providing 223 automobile spaces including
parking lifts. The project is subject to review by the Plarming and Transportation Commission (P&TC),
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and City Council approval; the Site and Design Review approval
findings and ARB approval criteria and findings are designed to ensure an appropriate site layout and
architectural design, including landscaping that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its
surroundings. The site development complies with the land -use designation as described below.
Compliance with parking regulations is addressed in Section 0 below.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Service Commercial land use designation allows for facilities providing citywide and regional
services and relies on customers arriving by car. Typical uses encouraged in this district include auto
services and dealerships, motels, appliance stores and restaurants. The proposed hotel development
within this section of the City is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to provide citywide and
regional services. The proposed mixed use is an allowed use within the CS Zone District.
The project complies with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowed under the CS zone district. The CS Zone
allows for an FAR of 1.0:1 for a total mixed use floor area ratio. The total building area is 69,503
square feet (I :0: I FAR).
Three DEEs are requested as part of this application. The first DEE is to exceed the maximum height
limit in the CS zone district. The height of the development is 49-6" feet, measured to the top of the
parapet meeting the 50-foot maximum allowable height limit for the CS zone district. The proposed
rooftop light monitors and mechanical roof screen w<;mld exceed the 50-foot height limit; none would be
taller than 63' -5" -these projections above 50-feet are monitors that would provide lighting to the
interior of the fourth floor residential units. The monitors would provide lighting to the interior of the
fourth floor residential units. Inserting the light monitors between the required roof screens provides a
consistent horizontal element at the roof top where an assortment of mechanical screens would be
located, resulting in a streamlined profile.
The second DEE request is for a'reduction in the required setback from 5-feet to 2-feet along Acacia
A venue. The proj ect is unique in that it encompasses an entire block face of EI Camino Real and serves
to anchor the entire frontage with a strong building mass that reinforces the street edge. The area
available for ground floor retail/recreation space at the comer of EI Camino Real and Acacia Avenue is
constrained in width by the existing structures that will remain at 3127 EI Camino Real. The reduced
setback aIlows a better proportional building element at the intersection of El Camino Real and Acacia
A venue, with a strong comer presence at the street level that steps back at the upper level as it
transitions to the residential element along Acacia A venue.
The third requested DEE is to allow for an increase of the "build to" line requirement along Portage
Avenue to aIlow a 7-foot setback in lieu of a 5-foot setback. The proposed ground floor levels have been
set to allow accessibility across the site as weIl as at the El Camino Real entry points. This results in an
elevated plaza area at the comer of El Camino Real and Portage Avenue, which serves both to mark the
corner and to provide a distinct Sense of destination for plaza visitors. Access to the elevated plaza
would be provided via a stairway at the comer and a ramp along Portage A venue at the face of the
building. A 7-foot setback at this location would allow access space for the ramp in addition to a
landscape buffer strip, The two-foot exception would afford enhanced aesthetics while providing easy
site accessibility. The commercial area would be set back from EI Camino Real to provide a 12-foot
wide effective sidewalk width (curb face to building, required by Zoning Code SectionI8.16.060). The
front setback is 4-feet from the back of sidewalk The rear setback is 10-feet at the residential portion
which is consistent with the CS zone.
The project site is located within the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area, identified in the Comprehensive
Plan, a mixed use area adjacent to the California A venue business district It is also served by the
California Avenue Multi-model Transit Station. Cal-Ventura offers opportunities for new transit-
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 24 Mitigated Negative Declaration
oriented development, as it includes several underutilized properties likely to redevelop in the near
future. New housing in this area could provide the momentum for neW pedestrian amenities and shuttle
bus connections to nearby Stanford Research Park. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The project site is located within the Cal-Ventura corridor area, as defined by the South El Camino Real
Design Guidelines (Guidelines). It is not considered a strategic site within theCal-Ventura Area. The
area is characterized by mixed-use as well as auto-oriented retail commercial uses. Although presently
pedestrian activity is light, the Guidelines look toward accommodating such activity. With that in mind
the Guidelines indicate new buildings should front El Camino Real with entries fronting the street or
clearly visible from the street providing. recognizable and easily accessible entries for both pedestrians
and vehicular arrivals. The project proposal complies with many of the specific Guidelines for the
mixed-use area relative to site planning and design. The Guidelines indicate that all buildings should
have entries facing El Camino Real. The proposed commercial entry faces on El Camino Real adjacent
to the Portage Avenue comer.
The project is requesting three DEEs that would provide for enhanced aesthetics and stronger pedestrian
oriented entry on El Camino Real. Consequently, the project would have a less than significant impact
with respect to land use and zoning designation.
The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmlancj of Statewide
Importance" area, as shown on the maps. prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use; and is not regulated by
the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
J MINERAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1,2 X
or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-l). This designation
signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 25 Mitigated Negative Declaration
resources. There is no indication in the 20 1 0 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally
valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
K NOISE .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially I. Less Than No
Significallt Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
levels in excess of standards established in the ,
local general plan or noise ordinance, or 1,2,13
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,2,13 X
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above level~ 1,2,13
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? 1,2,13
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1,2
e.xcessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity ofa private X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1,2
excessive noise levels? .
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,2;13
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an X
existing residential area, even ifthe Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,2,13
an existing residential area, thereby causing the X
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1,2,13
existing residential area where the Ldn X
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,2,13 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2,13 X X
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
I) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,2,5,13 X
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 26 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Wonld the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
. Incoroorated
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
bv 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level ranging between 67-74 Ldn • Vehicular
traffic along EI Camino Real provides the dominate source of "steady-state" environmental noise at the
site. The typical events include cars and trucks as well as regularly scheduled buses. This noise level is
typical for commercial districts. Grading and construction activities will result in temporary increases in
local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with
excavation, grading and construction, which will be short term in duration. Standard approval
conditions would require the project to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10),
which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term
construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less
than significant.
Based on acoustical measurements performed by Charles Salter and Associates, the future noise levels at
the proposed setback of the apartment units would range from DNL 74dB to 67dB. Facades facing El
Camino Real receive the highest noise levels, DNL 74dB. Facades along Acacia Avenue and Portage
Avenue receive noise levels to 67dB. Project noise levels exceed 65dB threshold for CalGreen.
Therefore, the commercial and retail spaces require acoustical treatment. All· of these measured noise
levels would be considered "normal to conditionally acceptable" for commercial space and
"conditionally acceptable" for residential per the City's noise goals. Therefore, noise reducing measures
would be required to comply with City'S noise standards.
Where the DNL exceeds 65dBA, the project must incorporate mitigation measures into the building
design to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to DNL 45dBA or less. To meet the indoor
noise level criteria, sound-rated exterior facades will be necessary for some units. Recommendations for
sound rated construction will depend on the size and type of rooms, window and exterior facades, and
must be detennined during the design phase.
In addition to the background noise affecting the project, the project will generate noise that would
increase the ambient noise levels. Equipment such as roof top air conditioning and exhaust fans as well
as emergency engine generators crates noise that must comply with the City of Palo Alto Noise
Ordinance. The ordinance requires that mechanical equipment noise not exceed 6dB above the local
ambient at residential property lines or 8 dB at commercial property lines with a maximum daytime
exception of 70 dB when measures at 25 feet.
To mitigate the potential noise impacts of the mechanical equipment it is recommended that the project
incorporate mitigations measures as outlined in the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance which include equipment
selection, equipment location, and equipment enclosures. The underground parking will require an
exhaust system. Any noise from this system will be attenuated.
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 27 Miligated Negative Declaration
.
The City's standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project to ensure the construction noise
and rooftop mechanical equipment noise impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The project
site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Mitigation Measures:
None
L POPULATION AND HOUSING .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing X
new homes and businesses) or in<;lirectly (for 1,2,5,6
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elsewhere? 1,5,6
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere? 1,5,6
Create a substantial imbalance between 1,2,6 X employed residents and jobs?
Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,2,6,
population projections? -X
DISCUSSION:
The project is the redevelopment of a 1.6 acre site to construct 62,887 square feet of new floor area to
establish a 49-6" foot tall, 4-story, 46-unit apartment building, with commercial, office and retail uses.
This mixed-use project will not impact the City's jobs-housing (im) balance.
Population in Palo Alto's sphere of influence in 1996, according to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was
58,000 people. This is projected by the City's Comprehensive Plan to increase to 62,880 by 2010. By
adding 46 units to the housing stock, the proposed project would contribute to population growth in the
area. With an average household size of 2.24 persons the proposed project would generate a population
increase of approximately 103 people; however, the project is included as Housing Opportunity site in
the Housing Element, and the population increase has been anticipated. This incremental increase in
population generated by the proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 28 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
Significant Significant Significant
Wonld the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
1,2 X
Fire protection?
1,2 X
Police protection?
1,2 X
Schools?
1,2 X
Parks? X
1,2
Other public facilities?
DISCUSSION:
Fire
The site is presently served by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The proposed changes will not impact
present Fire District service to the site or area. The project would, as a condition of approval, be
required to comply with all Fire Department requirements for fire safety.
Police
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The proposed changes
will not result in the need for additional police officers, equipment or facilities.
Schools
The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) serves the City of Palo Alto and portions of the City of
Los Altos Hills. PAUSD includes 12 elementary schools (kindergarten through grade five),
3 intermediate schools (grades six through eight), and 2 high schools (grades nine through twelve).
Other schools and programs in the PAUSD include a pre-school program, a self-supporting adult school ,
a school for the hearing impaired, the Children's Hospital School at the Lucille Packard Children'S
Hospital, and a summer schoo!.3 In 2006, PAUSD employed approximately 646 teachers, providing a
ratio of one teacher for every 17.5 students.4
Palo Alto Unified School District, http://pausd,orglparents/schoo!s_sites/index,shtml, accessed I?ecember 12, 2008
The staffing ratio is calculated based on 2006 student 'enrollment of 11,329 as reported by the Palo Alto Unified School District
Agenda. Regular Meeting, September 23, 2008 '
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 29 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Enrollment in the PAUSD is approaching capacity. According to the City of Palo Alto's Board of
Education, in the 2008-2009 school year, elementary schools have room for an additional
123 students, middle schools have room for 95 students, and high schools have room for
239 students. Therefore, PAUSD schools' classroom capacity can accommodate approximately
457 additional students. Based on the PAUSD student generation rates (Lapkoff & Gobalet
Demographic Research, Inc. (Lapkoff Forecast page 20), an apartment unit yields 0.15 student, a
stacked condominium yields 0.25 student, and a BMR multifamily residential unit yields 0.7 student.
With 46 apartments at a 0.15 yield factor, a total of 6.6 students are estimated to be generated from
the development. Student enrollment associated with the proposed project would be within existing
capacity. Consequently, the impact of the proposed project on schools would be less than
significant.
Parks
The City of Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association (NRP A) Standards as
guidelines for determining parkland needs. These standards recommend that a city of the size and
density of Palo Alto should provide 2 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The proposed
project would generate 103 additional residents at the project site and would generate additional
workers at the project site. Based on the NRP A Standards, the addition of 103 residents to the
project site would generate a demand for 0.10 acres of parkland. Impact fees to address impacts on
parks were adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. As a condition of approval and
prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay a one-time
development impact fee for parks. The City's park-in-lieu fee and park facility fee will be used to
offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would result in a
less than significant impact.
Other Public Facilities
Impact fees to address impacts on community centers and libraries were adopted by the Palo Alto
City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be
required to pay a one time development impact fee for community centers and libraries. The fee will
be used to offset impacts on community centers and library facilities as a result of this project.
Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
None
N RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the 1,5,6
facility would occur or be accelerated?
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 30 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Wonld the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Does the project illclude recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which X
might have an adverse physical effect on the 1,5,6
environment?
DISCUSSION:
This project is subject to payment of impact fees for parks, libraries and community facilities. The
project would not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor include or require construction of
recreational facilities. No mitigation is required. .
There would not be a significant change to the demand of recreation services as a result of the proposed
project.
Mitigation Measures:
None
o TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .
Issues and Supportiug Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic X
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 1,5,14,20
result in a substantial increase ill either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the X
county congestion management agency for 1,5,14,
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels X
or a change in location that results in 1
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible 1,6,14
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
3159 El Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 31 Mitigated Negative Declaration
.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2,5 ·X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,2,5,14, X
g) Conflict with adopied policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,2,5,6,14
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,2,5,14
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) X
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V /C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1,2,5,14 .
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average X
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,2,5,14
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause X
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical V /e value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,2,5,14
or contribute traffic in excess of I % of X
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,2,5,14,20 X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,2,5,14
comparative analysis between the design X
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at tum lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or function of 1,2,5,14 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,2,5,14 X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5,14 X
DISCUSSION:
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 32 Mitigated Negative Declaration
A Transportation Impact Analysis & Neighborhood Traffic Study provided by Kimley-Hom analyzed
the potential impacts to the transportation system as a result of the redevelopment of the project site. The
existing facilities at the project site include the operation health/fitness club (Equinox) and operational
retail building (We Fix Macs). The existing operational specialty building would be displaced and its
square footage incorpo~ated into the proposed.
Significant findings of the study concluded:
• The proposed project is estimated to generate 893 total new daily trips, 89 trips occurring during
the AM peak-hours, 58 new trips occurring during the PMpeak-hour.
• As defined by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the addition of the proposed
project to the Cumulative (2035) scenario significantly worsen operating conditions at the EI
Camino intersection with West Charleston Road/Arastradero Road. This impact can be
mitigated to less than significant.
• The addition of the proposed project adds nominal additional queuing to several of the study
locations. Specifically, the project contributes at least one car length (25-feet) to the
eastbound EI Camino Realleftcturn queen at the Portage Avenue/Hansen Way intersection.
The significant impact at the EI Camino West Charleston Road/ Arastradero Road intersection can be
mitigated with the addition ofa southbound West Charleston Road right-turn overlap signal phase.
Access/Circulation
Primary access to the site will be provided from Portage Avenue with secondary access from
Acacia A venue. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the site will also be provided via EI Camino Real
and Portage Avenue.
Parking Spaces
Vehicular parking is provided in the existing two-level garage on Portage A venue, supplemented by a
new underground garage that will be accessed from the below-grade portion of the existing garage. In
addition, on-grade visitor parking is tucked beneath the residential wings of the building accessed from
Portage A venue and Acacia Avenue.
According to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.52.040, the project is required to provide 235
parking spaces. The project proposes 223 parking spaces, 5% (12 parking spaces). The parking provided
is a joint facility serving a variety of uses, the applicant will request a reduction in accordance with
P AMC Section 18.52.050 Table (4). PAMC 18.52.050 allows for Director adjustments for, for joint use
parking facilities where at least 10 spaces are otherwise required where the Director can require a TDM
program to be submitted and approved (up to 20% reduction). The applicant is requesting a 5%
reduction in the required number of stalls. Car lifts for tenants will be employed in the new Portion of
the underground garage, while conventional spaces are provided for customers and visitors.
Transit Service Impacts
Existing bus service is provided on El Camino Real. The project is estimated to have a less than
significant impactto transit service.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 33 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The project includes adequate bicycle parking as well as pedestrian access to and from the site. The
project is estimated to have a less than significant impact to bicycle and pedestrian impacts.
The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and Transportation Division and does
not contain design features that will substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency
access. The project will not result in a change to air traffic patterns.
Impact Fees
The property is subject to citywide traffic impact fees.
Mitigation Measures T-l: The applicant shall conduct an evaluation and implementation of signal
cycle length optimization and reallocation of the green time at the intersection of El Camino Real and
West Charleston Road.
P UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? 1.2 X
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant 1,2
environmental effects?
c) Require orresult in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of X
which could cause significant environmental 1,2
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded 1,2 X entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing 1
commitments? ~
t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
pennitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? 1 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
. and regulations related to solid waste? 1
X
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration I
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 34 Mitigated Negative Declaration
.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project? X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and serviCe
systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require
the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site
water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent
properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities are proposed in the project to
accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses
within the building. The project is subject to all conditions of approval provided by all applicable city
departments.
Mitigation Measures:
None
Q MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation ..
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, X
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining 1,2-Map
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal LA,S
cormnunity, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively X
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects ·of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, 1,2,5
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, either directly or 1,5,9,10,13,
indirectly?
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 35 Mitigated Negative Declaration
, ,
i i
DISCUSSION:
The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic
resources. The uses are appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an adverse
visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements
that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts
once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts to the users of the new mixed use project in
the area of biological resources, noise, seismicity and air quality.
Global Climate Change Impacts
Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth's weather including its temperature, precipitation,
and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated
atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into
the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is known as the
"greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached . consensus that global climate
change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. Twenty agencies at the international, national . ,
state, and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global
warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses
climate change; however, in California a multiagency "Climate Action Team", has identified a range of
strategies and the Air Resources Board, under Assembly Bill (AB) 32, has been designated to adopt the
main plan for reducing California's GHG emissions by January 1, 2009, and regulations and other
initiatives for reducing GHG emissions by January 1,2011. AB 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a
statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and
regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas
emissions reductions.
By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of
California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no established
standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA
Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of
global climate change, the challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to
the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making
process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an
environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would occur, and what
mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts.
The project would generate greenhouse gases primarily through electricity generation/use and
generation of vehicle trips. Efforts to reduce the project's greenhouse gas emissions by reducing
electricity demand and reducing vehicle trips and miles, therefore, should be implemented. The land use
is changing from general business service and to a larger mixed use development. consisting of retail,
commercial and residential. The proposed project would confonn to the City's Comprehensive Plan
and other policies to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, and encourage automobile-alternative
modes of transportation (e.g., public transit, walking, and bicycling), as described in detail in Section 0
Transportation of this Initial Study. '
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 36 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single development
project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in
global temperature or rise in sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single
development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas emissions
generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to
cumulatively contribute to global climate change.
Declaring an impact significant or not implies some knowledge of incremental effects that is several'
years away, at best. To detennine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on
global climate change is speculative, particularly giv~n the fact that there are no existing numerical'
thresholds to detennine an impact. However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing
enviromnental impacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines [§16064(b)], it is the City's position
that, based on the nature and size of this project, its location within an established urban area served by
existing infrastructure (rather than a greenfield site) and the project's location in an area served by local
and regional shuttle and transit systems, the proposed project would not impede the state's ability to
reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California by Executive Order S-
3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons, this project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions.
The measures to reduce energy use have not been specifically identified. Final measures to reduce
energy use and emissions would be prepared during the building pennit process. The project includes
components that will offset the project's potential minor incremental contribution to global climate
change. These include:
• Cal Green Tier 2 compliance
• Incorporate low-and zero-VOC products
• Interior design will incorporate sustainability harvested, recyclable and renewable materials
• Location in proximity of existing public transportation network
• Incorporating materials and finishes to protect indoor air quality
• Indoor water reduction
• Energy Star equipment and appliances
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner's knowledge ofthe site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 (list specific policy and map references)
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 .:... Zoning Ordinance
4. Required compliance with the Unifonn Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and
Windload
5. Project Plans, Architectural Dimensions, received May 22, 2013
6. Project Description, Architectural Dimensions, received March 4,2013 and April 5, 2013
7. Arboris! Report, Urban Tree Management, received March 4, 2013
8. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
9. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Murray Engineers, Inc., March 2013
10. City of Palo Alto South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines, June 2002
\ , I
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 37 Mitigated Negative Declaration
II. Phase I and Phase II Enviromnental Site Assessment, Steller Enviromnental Solutions, April 2013 . . ,
March 2013
12. Transportation Analysis, Kimley-Hom and Associates, February 21,2013
13. Enviromnental Noise Assessment, Charles M. Salter, February 27,2013
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required .
.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least
one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Project Planner
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Date
Date
x
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 38 Mitigated Negative Declaration
3159 EI Camino Real 13PLN-00040 Page 39 Mitigated Negative Declaration
I
" ,
P
t
tl
1
located at 3159 E1 Camino Real could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that
study, the City makes the following determination:
x
The proposed project COULD NOT have it significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation
measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
The initial study prepared for this project described above incorporates all relevant information regarding
the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determinati~n that an EIR is not
required for the project.
In addition, the following Mitigations have been incorporated into the project:
Mitigation Measures C-l: The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally
elevated levels of particulate matter downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the
potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This impact is considered potentially significant but
normally mitigateable by implementing the following control measures:
During demolition of existing structures:
o Water active demolition areas to control dust generation during demolition and pavement break-
up.
o Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
o Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
o Dudng all construction phases:
o Pave, apply water 3x1daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites ..
o Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded
areas inactive for ten days or more).
o Enclose, cover, water 2x1daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand,
etc.).
o Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hOUf.
o Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
o Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
The above measures include feasible measures for construction emissions identified by the BAAQMD for
large sites. According to the District threshold of significance for construction impacts, implementation
of the measures would reduce construction impacts of the proJect to a less than significant level.
®$Wl:iJl,~'>l'!cli!!rI~tJlt~\w)*-WI:re#($!tY-."!i!u.ru!;{".wI<a!l'l]:j(fjffl~m#ilmMZ~JJ~M1OUmrn:~"i'bli%1!MW!Sj?ml'ltX~mID.!IljllUUN;Y$l.l7lllWiMw.l¥At\SitM1ilUmjl':W;m!Yi'\\\I£~!f1Wl:1oI
Mitigation Measures B-1: The applicant shall abide by all provisions of Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the
State Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as published in the Federal
Register (Vol. 70, No. 49; March 15,2005).
Although there is no vegetation on the project site that may contain nesting birds, there may be nesting
birds in existing vegetation abutting the proposed project site. To protect any nesting birds, the proposed
project may avoid construction during the nesting period. Alternatively, aqualified wildlife biologist (to
be hired by the applicant) shall conduct a survey for nesting birds that are covered by the MBTA andlor
Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code in the 1'idnily of the project site: This survey
shall cover all areas that would be disturbed as a result of construction-related activities during the nesting
period, and shall include a "buffer zone" (an area of potential sensitivity, beyond the bounds of the
propose,d project construction area) which shall be determined by the biologist based on his or her
professional judgment and experience. This buffer zone may include off-site habitat.
This biological survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the commencement of
construction activities. The Wildlife biologist shall provide a report to the City promptly detailing the
findings of tJie survey. No construction shall be conducted until this report has been provided to the City
and the City has authorized in writing the commencement of construction activities in accord with the
biologist's findings.
Mitigation Measures F-J: The design of all buildings shall be designed in accordance with current
earthquake resistant standards, including the 2007 CBC guidelines and design recommendations
regarding the potential for localized liquefaction presented in the Geotechnical Investigation provided by
Murray Engineers.
Mitigation Measure F-2: Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall submit a well-designed
shoring system for the basement excavation to be designed by a licensed engineer subject to review and
approval by Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measures H-I: A project specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and a Site Mitigation Plan
(SMP), would be implemented, and adhered to during construction and excavation activities. All workers
on site should be read and understand the HASP and SMP, and copies should be maintained on site
during construction and excavation at all times.
Mitigation M~asures H-2: A Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP) should be developed and
followed by current and future owners, tenants, and operators. The plan will include the implementation
of the described remedies and engineering design.
Mitigation Measures H-3: Additional collection of four soil samples at the site should be completed after
the base excavation to 14 feet bgs is achieved. This soil-gas collection will verifY if the removal of the
clay cap has resulted in a reduction of residual soil gas below the residential ESLs. CurrentPCE and TCE
concentrations in soil-gas are one or two orders of magnitude greater that what would be expected to
accumulate based on current groundwater concentrations of PCE and TCE, and would not be likely to
reach the current concentrations in the future if the reduction of groundwater contaminants continues as it
is expected to.
Mitigation Measures H-4: If soil-gas concentrations collected following the initial base excavation phase
have not resulted in significant decrease; a sub slab passive vapor collection and passive vapor collection
and passive venting system designed full vapor barrier would be implemented to mitigate against the
identified VOC soil-vapor intrusion (see Mitigation Measure H-5 for vapor intrusion mitigation system).
9201
Council Members Only
Page 1