Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-01-19 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: January 19, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 1451 Middlefield Road [16PLN-00217]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a One-Story, 14,790 Square Foot Replacement Building for an Expanded Junior Museum and Zoo and Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lots. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF) Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 799 Embarcadero Road (file PLN16-00123): Applicant's Request for Architectural Review Approval of a Two-Story, 6,663 Square Foot Replacement Fire Station Building Located on the Northwest Corner of Embarcadero and Newell Roads Adjacent to the Southeasterly Edge of Rinconada Park on an 18.27 Acre Property. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15302 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Southeasterly Edge of Rinconada Park on an 18.27 Acre Property. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures). Zoning District: Public Facility (PF) 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER. 3223 Hanover Street [16PLN-00190]: Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of two Existing Office / R&D Buildings and the Construction of a new two- story 110,000 Square Foot Office / R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: RP 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3181 Porter Drive [16PLN-00209]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Three Existing Office / R&D buildings at 3181, 3221, and 3215 Porter Drive and Construction of a new two-story 101,083 Square Foot Office Building on the site. This Project is a Designated Project Under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: RP. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 6. December 15, 2016 Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Alex Lew Vice Chair Kyu Kim Boardmember Peter Baltay Boardmember Wynne Furth Boardmember Robert Gooyer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7637) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers are anticipating being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which rotate throughout the year. The second attachment transmits administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals since the Board’s last meeting. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Attachments: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) Attachment -Staff Approvals (DOCX) 2017 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/5/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Canceled 1/19/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/16/2017 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/10/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/4/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/18/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/8/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/22/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/15/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/29/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2017 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) July August September October November December (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) Architectural Review Board List of Staff Approval of Minor ARB Applications Project Description: Removal and replacement of two white birch trees Applicant: Jose Rios Address: 1701 Page Mill Road Approval Date: January 9, 2017 Request for Hearing Deadline: January 23, 2017 Project Description: Review to allow new landscaping Applicant: John Frando of HKIT Architects Address: 850 Webster Street Approval Date: January 9, 2017 Request for Hearing Deadline: January 23, 2017 Project Description: Review of new projecting sign Applicant: Shannon Scordella Address: 700 Welch Road Approval Date: December 22, 2016 Request for Hearing Deadline: January 5, 2017 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7100) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 1/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1451 Middlefield (Prelim JMZ) Title: PUBLIC HEARING: 1451 Middlefield Road [16PLN-00217]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a One-Story, 14,790 Square Foot Replacement Building for an Expanded Junior Museum and Zoo and Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lots. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF) From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a preliminary review of the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) project planned for 1451 Middlefield Road. Report Summary The Community Services Department is seeking the ARB’s preliminary comments on the project, which is to replace the existing Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) with a new museum and education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosures, and perimeter site improvements on the site of the current facilities. This review follows a recent Council session conducted November 21, 2016, and is the second ARB study session on the topic of a replacement structure for the JMZ. The proposed project scope has been developed in coordination with the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan for the surrounding park improvements, parking lot reconfiguration and adjacent public facilities. Plans are viewable after entering the project address into the designated search box at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. There are multiple layers of site goals and constraints for this project. The site is shown on the location map (Attachment A). Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Architect: Sarah Vaccaro, Cody Anderson Wasney Representative: John Aiken, Community Services Sr. Program Manager Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: 1451 Middlefield Road (JMZ) Neighborhood: Community Center Lot Dimensions & Area: 800 feet Middlefield Rd. dimension; 795,841 square feet (sf) total area Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Lucie Stern Community Center is a Category 1 Resource (includes CSD Administrative offices, Community Center, Children’s Theatre, Stern Theatre, Boy Scout facility, Children’s Library); JMZ is not on National or California historic register; site includes Rinconada Park, Pool, Fire Station, Substation, and the Lou Henry Hoover House (aka Girl Scout House) Existing Improvement(s): JMZ: 9,000 sf, 2-stories, built in 1941 Existing Land Use: Community Center Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North of parcel: Residential (R-1 zone) West of parcel: Residential (R-1) East of parcel: Public Elementary School (Walter Hays, PAUSD) adjacent, and Art Center and Rinconada Library across Newell Road South of parcel: Residential (R-1) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public Facilities Comp. Plan Designation: Public Facilities Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, across from single family residences Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Special Setback 24 feet on Middlefield Road Utility Easement/Corridor Water, sewer and storm drain main lines (sheet C1.1) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Study session conducted on 11/21/16; Staff Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54681 PTC: None. HRB: None. ARB: March 19, 2015 Study Session of an 18,400 sf replacement building https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46405; Action Minutes (not verbatim) are available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46924 PRC: Two Study Sessions in 2015; One session April 26, 2016; Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52063 (PRC supports reconfigured relationship with Park; Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52999 Project Description In addition to replacement of the existing Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo buildings with new buildings and outdoor environments, the project includes the reconfiguration of the existing shared parking lot(s) with improved fire access and coverage, accessible parking stalls and pathways, drainage improvements, and site lighting. Applicant’s Description The applicant’s project description is provided as Attachment B to this report. The architect’s design approach to the site organization, massing, materiality, program and experience, and surrounding site improvements is described therein. Attachment B provides a complete summary of design and process efforts to address this unique and highly valued community resource that is currently constrained by the existing older (1941) facility. It highlights the goals and constraints of the project according to the applicant, including: 1. Improving the interface of the JMZ with Rinconada Park while minimizing impact thereto, 2. Protecting heritage and mature feature trees, 3. Improving wayfinding along Middlefield and visibility of the JMZ from that street, and 4. Integrating the new building within the adjacent residential context. Project Type and Review Process The formal entitlement application has not yet been submitted; the preliminary review application process ends with the ARB public hearing and any direction to the applicant is not binding. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) will also review the concept plans in an upcoming study session. The project plans staff reviewed for this report were submitted December 12, 2016. The applicant plans to submit the formal AR application in early 2017; staff will review the submittal for ‘completeness’ prior to the first formal hearing. The ARB recommendation on the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 formal application will be based upon the Architectural Review findings Council recently adopted (Attachment D), set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.76. History of JMZ and Site Constructed in 1941, the existing JMZ building has continually housed the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. The institution of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo was founded in 1934 and belongs to a nation-wide pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th century. The Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) is attached to this report (Attachment F). The HRE concludes the JMZ is not eligible for listing the National Register or California Registers under any criteria, due to significant alterations over its history resulting in a loss of historic integrity. The closest building to the JMZ is Walter Hays School on Palo Alto Unified School District’s land to the south of the project site. The Girl Scouts’ Lou Henry Hoover House is the closest building on the City’s parcel; approximately 45 feet to the north. Images of Lucie Stern and Lou Henry Hoover House are shown on plan sheet A0.8. The Lou Henry Hoover (LHH) House, designed by Birge Clark and built in 1926, is the oldest active scout meeting house today, according to the Girl Scouts of Northern California website. It predates the adjacent Birge Clark designed Lucie Stern Community Center, which includes the main theater, Boy Scout facility, children’s theater, and children’s library, and is listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 historic resource (Attachment E). Staff learned that the LHH House was relocated in 1936 to the current site from its original site somewhere near the location of the Lucie Stern Center, and that the LHH House received an addition in 1945 on the northeast side of the building. The LHH House may be eligible for listing on both the California and National historic registers, but no historic resource evaluation has been performed. Site Coverage, Floor Area, and Height The existing buildings on the City’s 795,841 sf site cover approximately 81,400 sf of the site. Project plans show the Rinconada Long Range Plan on the site and provide data regarding other buildings’ coverage on this site. The existing museum and zoo buildings cover 8,500 square feet (sf) of the site. The proposed JMZ buildings would cover an additional 6,290 sf, for a total coverage of 14,790 sf by the JMZ project. The lot coverage after construction would be 11% of the site where 30% maximum lot coverage is allowed. With its small second floor of 500 sf, the existing building has 9,000 sf of gross floor area (GFA). The proposed GFA is 14,790 sf. The height of the proposed building is 22 feet. The height of the central supportive column for the netting over the zoo is 36 feet. The fences around the zoo are proposed to be ten to 12 feet tall and the fence around the outdoor animal management area is proposed to be eight feet tall. Building Design The main building is a modified ‘U’ shaped building designed to preserve existing, mature Pecan and Dawn Redwood trees. The new, one-story building will house the museum as well as zoo support functions. Museum components include exhibit rooms, multi-use room, entry/lobby, City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 offices, collection hub and storage rooms, shop, mechanical rooms, conference rooms, classroom, restrooms, and other building support areas such as hallways, elevator, and staircases (2). The zoo uses would include animal control and program and storage rooms. Outdoor Zoo Design The outdoor zoo area includes a netted enclosure; the area is to be called “loose in the zoo” and its zoo exhibits would include meerkat, tortoise, flamingo, duck, kitten, bobcat, raccoon, turtle, cichlid, rabbit, and underwater animals. The outdoor zoo area east of the ‘loose’ zoo would include an animal management area and would be covered with low level netting (seen on plan sheet Z1.0). Building Materials, Signage, Landscaping, and Trees Plan sheets A4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and 5.0 provide images and the building locations for application of proposed materials and signage concepts, which reflect a contemporary style. The zoo site plans, located on Plan Sheets Z01 and Z11, show materials proposed in the ‘loose in the zoo’ area and landscape concepts are shown on sheets C2.1 and PH-2. The applicants’ project description indicates uses of materials are intended to show nature is an educational tool. Plans indicate that 31 trees would be removed and approximately 40 trees would be added for a net increase of approximately nine trees. Many of the new trees would be located within the parking lot(s). The attached Arborist Reports provides information about existing tree conditions and removals. Parking, Circulation and Lighting The existing main parking lot (between the JMZ and Lucie Stern center) features diagonal parking spaces and is inefficient. The secondary parking lot between the Lou Henry Hoover House and theater has a 90-degree parking layout. The landscaped area in front of the Girl Scout House would be converted to parking spaces to increase the supply of spaces on site. The proposed parking lot reconfiguration features 90-degree parking spaces throughout, primarily two-way vehicle circulation and some one-way circulation. The December 12, 2016 plans indicate the proposed parking lot(s) revisions would result in approximately 13 additional on-site automobile parking spaces. The design includes new sidewalks, striped crosswalks, and parking lot trees. The electrical plan indicates 12-foot tall light fixtures around the perimeter of the parking lots, and 25-foot tall light fixtures in the center of the parking lots. Storm water treatment areas are proposed within both lots shown on plan sheet C2.1. One driveway to the parking lot on Middlefield Road would be eliminated. The long-range plan includes an increase in on-street parking by approximately 21 spaces. The project includes an expansion of the number of bicycle rack spaces, located at each end of the new JMZ building. 25 short term bike parking spaces and five long-term bike parking spaces are proposed. 2015 ARB Study Session City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The ARB conducted a study session to receive an overview of a replacement building containing 18,400 sf of floor area. Board members Gooyer, Kim and Lew provided non-binding comments at that time, and a former member also provided comments. The board members: Wanted the JMZ to retain the kid friendly environment/atmosphere; Noted the proposed building is similar to an office building/structure; Stated the proposed green roof is not used as a teaching opportunity; Declared the proposed elevation is “a let-down”; Questioned the need for total demolition of the existing building; Asked whether the existing building could accommodate visitor increase; Asked how the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan fits into the project; Questioned whether the area along Middlefield Road belongs to the Rinconada Park; Questioned if the Plan for expansion of the Rinconada Pool was included in this project; Asked whether the proposed building could have a basement to lower down the mass of the proposed structure; Inquired about the use of backside of the Walter Hayes school property and back end of the zoo property line, noted that the existing fence was not engaging and suggested a better use of the space between Walter Hayes School and JMZ; Suggested improved signage and graphic art qualities of the building to bring back “childlike” qualities; Noted the existing parking lot and wayfinding should be improved; Stated that the entrance building resembles an office building, that the difference between the two buildings needed to be bridged, tied together; Stated that the building had bulky massing, and asked that it be toned down; Noted the scale and texture were okay and fit in with the neighborhood; Said landscaping fronting Middlefield Road is important and that neighbors should weigh in on this; Asked whether the Zoo support in the building could be embedded in the basement, noted a preference for smaller massing, and suggested that two stories may be too tall and that the applicant provide a 3D model for proper understanding; Suggested that more robust neighborhood outreach would be necessary, as not everyone in the community is aware of this project; Noted the goals of the project are exciting and interesting, and the scale are okay but the architecture needs improvement; Asked for a contextual section of Middlefield Road with foliage and screening; Felt the proposed project is consistent with city’s Comprehensive Plan vision; Warned about the utility easement running through the site; Supported the increased setback from the school building; Wanted more color, playful inventive motifs as long as these were respectful to the neighborhood; and Noted several other suggestions having to do with parking, bus standing area, and a need for more community involvement. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The ARB considers the context of the project. The context includes the adjacency of Walter Hays School, the Lou Henry Hoover House, Rinconada Park, and the Lucie Stern Community Center, as well as the proximity of the residential neighborhoods across Middlefield Road and Hopkins Avenue. The existing context includes both one story and two story buildings. School and Residential Neighborhoods The southeasterly wall of the existing JMZ building is located on the property line shared with the Palo Alto School District’s Walter Hayes Elementary School. The proposed JMZ building would have a ten foot setback from that shared property line, and follow the existing setback from Middlefield Road. The proposed building improves the building separation from a Walter Hays classroom building. The building component facing Middlefield homes would be longer than the existing building end by about 30 feet. Historic Site and Nearby Historic Buildings The project has a contemporary design on a site that contains older and registered historic buildings. The Lucie Stern Community Center, designed by Birge Clark and built from 1932 to 1940, reflects the Spanish Colonial Revival style featuring a stucco exterior and clay tile roofing. It is locally significant and listed on the City’s inventory as a historic category 1 building as noted on the attached inventory form prepared in 1978 and updated in 1981 (Attachment E). As noted, the Lou Henry Hoover House, circa 1926, relocated from the current Boy Scout wing of the Stern Center to its current address at 1120 Hopkins, was named after the former First Lady, Lou Henry Hoover, who established the first west coast troop in Palo Alto and served as president of Girl Scout USA. The Lou Henry Hoover House is finished with vertical wood siding and shingle roofing material. There are shrubs in front of the building and several mature trees, including a protected coast live oak (tree #284 on arborist map), and several ruby horse chestnut trees (#283 and #289). A old bird bath or fountain, dedicated to a former boy scout master, is also found in the front yard of the and would likely be relocated to the vicinity of the Boy Scout facility at the Lucie Stern Center. Staff is reviewing the setting to determine which features of the landscaping, if any, may have been installed during the period of significance. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The historic buildings on the site are primarily one-story with some two story components. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) will have the opportunity to see and comment on the conceptual plans forthe new building with respect to compatibility with the existing older buildings on the site, and compliance of the modifications of this Category 1 site with the Secretary of Interiors’ Standards for Rehabilitation. The HRB can also provide assistance to staff regarding the AR Findings, and comment on the Historic Resource Evaluation and environmental review document, once published. Transportation Demand Management and Parking Lot Improvements The site is on shuttle, bus and bike routes, and the applicant is preparing a transportation demand management (TDM) plan for submittal with the formal application for Architectural Review. The TDM plan will address pedestrian wayfinding and accessibility enhancements on and off-site, the provision of pedestrian scale lighting, bus drop-off along Middlefield, shuttle stop enhancements, a passenger drop off area at the new JMZ entry, and other improvements for safety related to the Rinconada Plan. The TDM plan is intended to not only reduce parking demand, but also to provide clear transportation options to residents and visitors. Transportation Division staff provided comments regarding the need for coverage over bike parking, secured parking provisions, and the disadvantages of wall-mounted bike parking. There is a requirement for 50% shading of parking lots and a requirement for one parking lot tree-island for every ten parking spaces in a row. The project architect is working with the City’s landscape architect to balance the requirements for shade and tree numbers with pedestrian wayfinding and storm water drainage needs. Utilities, Public Works Review The project architect has received comments from Utilities and Public Works Engineering staff about the City’s requirements. There is a utility corridor crossing the project site and there appears to be a gas line along Middlefield Road. The applicant is aware that building foundations are not allowed to extend into a utilities easement, and major construction projects include upgrades of existing utilities lines. The project architect is aware that a Utility Plan is required with building permits to show water line and meter upgrades, backflow preventers, transformers and the like, and aware of requirements for plans submitted with the formal AR application and additional requirements for building permits. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Plans prepared for formal AR review must include a site plan indicating storm water system connections and treatment requirements, standards for driveways, curbs and sidewalks, meters and transformers, backflow prevention, work in the right of way, notes about pavement resurfacing and storm water pollution prevention. The formal AR submittal plans also must address trash and recycling requirements. Logistics Plan Building permit applications would involve further disclosures, including submittal of a logistics plan(s). Logistics plans include pedestrian and vehicle traffic controls, truck routes and deliveries, contractor parking, on site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, noise and dust control. Conditions of approval and other measures can be designed to minimize adverse, temporary impacts of construction on residential neighborhoods. Zoning Compliance2 This project is subject to meeting the AR findings; it is not subject to Context Based Design Criteria, nor to any interim ordinances or moratoriums. The project plans indicate conformance with lot coverage, floor area ratio, setbacks and height development standards within the Public Facilities Zone District. The additional floor area proposed for the JMZ requires that additional parking spaces be provided. The proposal is to add 13 spaces to the supply on site. However, the number of parking spaces for all uses on the site is not met with the revised parking lot design. A request for a Director’s adjustment for the parking facilities is anticipated; this will be reviewed with the formal application in connection with proposed parking lot reconfiguration and transportation and parking alternatives (TDM plan). Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan3 With 150,000 annual visits, JMZ provides a strong start for children; JMZ is integral to Rinconada Park and the park is integral to the JMZ. The Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) works closely with researchers and professionals to provide a rich environment that stimulates children’s natural curiosity and creativity. The proposed project is consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The applicant is preparing a draft traffic study and TDM plan which will be submitted with, or in advance of, the formal application. The formal application will be reviewed with respect to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and Safe Routes to School. The traffic study and TDM plan will be reviewed by the City’s CEQA consultant, and included as source documents for the CEQA document. The Parks and Recreation Commission will review the TDM plan as well as the Initial 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Study following publication of those documents. The Planning and Transportation staff will review the parking lot plan to ensure efficient and safe circulation and minimization of conflicts. Greenbuilding The City’s long-time policy, established in 2007 before the City established green building requirements for private development, requires City buildings to obtain LEED Silver certification or equivalent (Attachment C). If the City Council adopts the new Green Building and Energy Reach Code being proposed by staff, it is likely that compliance with the 2016 more stringent green building code requirements will satisfy the City’s LEED Silver equivalent alternative. Consistency with Application Findings The Council approved Ordinance containing updated AR findings is attached to this report (Attachment D). Environmental Review Environmental review of the proposal under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City’s consultant (Powers) is underway. Following submittal of a formal application for Architectural Review (AR), anticipated in early 2017, the Initial Study will be published for public review and comment prior to the formal ARB review hearings. The ARB will have a role in commenting on the Aesthetics section of the CEQA document. The HRB will have a role in commenting on the Aesthetics and Cultural Resources sections of the CEQA document. In January 2015, staff had launched a joint environmental study for the Rinconada Park Long Range Master Plan and the Junior Museum and Zoo Project with the help of consultants David J Powers and Associates. The CEQA review includes preparation of technical studies to analyze existing conditions and identify potential impacts, as well as preparation of an Initial Study. Completed reports to date are Air Quality, Arborist Assessment, and Noise Assessment. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 6, 2016, which is at least 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 9, 2017, which is 10 days in advance of the ARB meeting. A Council study session is under consideration for early 2017, and the Parks and Recreation Commission is tentatively scheduled to review and recommend a Park Improvement Ordinance along with reviewing the Initial Study and Transportation Demand Management plan. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received regarding the current set of concept plans. Public comments have been provided in public hearings of the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant Project Description 12-12-16 (PDF) Attachment C: City Buildings LEED Silver 2007 Policy (DOC) Attachment D: Council Approved Ordinance AR Findings 12-12-16 (PDF) Attachment E: Community Center Historic Inventory Sheet (PDF) Attachment F: Historic Resource Evaluation (PDF) Attachment G: Arborist Report - Rinconada LRP (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 003-46-006 003-45-014 120-08-037 124-02-010 003-58-033 120-08-012 120-08-011 20-08-009 120-08-036 124-01-011 003-45-013 120-08-031 120-08-030 120-08-029 120-08-027 120-08-015 120-08-014 120-08-013 120-08-010 120-08-038 120-08-039 120-08-040 120-08-042 124-02-011 120-08-025 120-08-019 120-08-018 120-08-017 120-08-023 003-58-051 0 003-58-032 003-45-010 003-45-009 003-45-056 003-45-057 003-45-046 120-08-028 003-45- Girl Scout House Children's Library Junior Museum and Zoo 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 90.0' 112.5' 90.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 00' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 89.1' 132.5' 19.0' 112.5' 119.0' 132.5'48.9' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' .0' 203.3' 20.7' 22.5' 1.8' 209.9' 1494.6' 370.8' 560.5' 241.2' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 150.0' 80.0' 15 58.0'100.0' 173.2' 108.0' 204.1' 108.0' 00' 139.2' 58.9' 139.2'22.5' 20.7' 55.9' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 95.4' 132.5' 25.3' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 90.3' 132.5' 20.2' 112.5' 461.9' 510.8' 241.2' 560.5' 370.8' 75.0' 125.0' 70.0' 125.0' 70.0' 125.0' 74.0' 125.0' 74.0' 125.0' 60.7' 125.0' 60.8' 125.0' 78.7' 93.0'109.7' 31.9' 82.6' 123.4' 87.4' 26.5' 60.7'32.0' 78.7' 68.2' 78.4' 3.5' 148.4' 30.6' 26.5' 87.4' 130.7' 68.4' 151.9' 71.7' 80 110.9' 51.1' 16.2' 112.0' 112.0' 82.9' 70.0' 90.0' 125.0' 90.0' 125.0' 125.0' 60.4' 125.0' 60.0' 130.7' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 67.4' 23.1'102.6' 41.5' 170.0'18.4' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 67.4' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 149.0' 50.0' 149.1' 50.0' 149.1'3.5' 6.5' 46.5' 155.7' 50.0' 155.7' 50.0' 155.8' 50.0' 108.9' 53.5' 109.0' 53.5' 108.8' 46.5' 108.9' 46.5' 47.0' 100.0' 47.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 45.0' 150.0' 45.0' 150.0' 51.5' 150.0' 51.5' 156.5' 53.5' 156.5' 53.5' 10 50.0' 1010 50.0' 11 56.5' 1 52.5' 135.0' 52.5' 135.0' 70.0' 75.0' 48.5' 75.0' 48.5'40.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 75.0' 93.0' 75.0' 93.0' 75.0' 80.0' 75.0' 80.0' 75.0' 48.5' 75.0' 48.5' 50.0' 60.0' 50.0' 60.0'40.0' 50.0 147.0' 147.0' 50.0' 147.0' 100.0' 47.0' 100.0' 47.0' 147.0' 50.0' 147.0' 100 50.0' 100100 50.0' 100 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 75.0' 60.0' 75.0' 60.0' 200.1' 1 57.3'42.2'50.0' EMB A RC AD ER O ROA D HOPKINS AVENUEHOPKINS AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD E M BAR C A DE RO RO AD ON STREET CEDAR STREET WILSON STREET COMMUNITY LANE COMMUNITY LANE HARRIET STREET This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) Curb Edge Tree (TR) abc Known Structures abc Lot Dimensions Water Feature Railroad City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary 0' 165' CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto afrench, 2016-07-26 00:10:42Parcel Report (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc. • 455 Lambert Avenue • Palo Alto, CA 94306 • 650.328.1818 • Fax 650.328.1888 • www.cawarchitects.com DATE: PROJECT NAME: SUBJECT: December 12, 2016 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo Preliminary ARB Review Submittal: Project Description Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Background As the Bay Area’s only children’s science center and zoo, the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) is a place where children and families explore, wonder and make discoveries about the natural world. Our mission is to engage a child’s curiosity for science and nature. For visiting children, especially toddlers and preschoolers, we provide multi-sensorial, kinesthetic and play-based exhibits, authentic artifacts, hands-on programs, and live animal encounters designed to connect children to early science concepts. Our exhibit messaging is designed to cultivate empathy for the natural world and introduce conservation issues and solutions. For school-aged children, the museum offers annually 1,100 in-depth and hands-on science classes to 4,000 students in local elementary schools, at the museum, and in local open space preserves where students gain concrete experience and practice with scientific methods and theory, and conservation practice. The JMZ is a unique and highly valued resource for children. Child development research shows that the physical experiences offered here foster the development of abstract reasoning skills and improve learning. Research also shows that engagement with zoo animals helps children cultivate empathy for the natural world and to support conservation of wildlife and wild places. The JMZ’s intimate and approachable scale and consistent staffing has helped us forge rich and long-term relationships with our community—relationships that have allowed us to broaden and deepen the impact of our work. As the Junior Museum and Zoo approaches its 80th year, the museum and zoo are constrained by a facility that no longer reflects the needs of its visitors, collections, and operations. Due to inadequate storage and support spaces, accreditation options for both the Museum and Zoo are unobtainable. While the Educators continue to deliver outstanding educational programs, they are severely limited by lack of office, preparation and storage spaces. In addition, there are many accessibility and safety concerns in the existing facility and the surrounding site. The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum engaged the architectural firm of Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects, Inc. to work with a broad array of stakeholders to complete a facilities master plan in 2011 and 2012 evaluating program and operational needs, inadequacies of the existing facility, and options for renovation or new construction. During the master plan process, the following criteria was developed: Visitor Experience •Tailor spaces for experiences to specific audience segments, including early childhood audiences and children with special needs. •Develop safe and effective ways to connect children with live animals. •Develop classrooms that improve student engagement and learning impact. •Improve access, safety, restrooms and way finding. •Create opportunities for outdoor “play in nature” experiences. •Improve access from the JMZ to Rinconada Park amenities: playground; Children’s Library; Children’s Theatre; Stern Community Center; Art Center; Walter Hays Elementary. PROJECT DESCRIPTION________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Collections •Provide facilities for animal health and quarantine to meet the standards of the American Zoological Association (AZA). •Improve the care and storage areas for the non-living collections--held in public trust by the Museum—to meet the standards of the American Museum Association (AMA) standards. Operations •Improve storage, access, and work areas to ensure staff safety, efficiency and effectiveness of operations. •Implement green building practices. The overarching goal of the master plan is to “right size” the JMZ facilities to properly support the progressive and innovative educational and science based programs they provide to the community. Due to the limitations of the existing facilities and infrastructure, the facility master plan culminated in a recommendation to demolish the existing museum and zoo buildings and replace with a new facility sized to adequately support the educational mission, outreach, and public programs for Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. Project Description and Scope The proposed design for the Junior Museum & Zoo Project includes constructing a new museum and education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosure, and perimeter site improvements on the site of the current facilities. The project scope also includes the reconfiguration of the existing shared parking lot, fire access and coverage, accessible parking stalls and pathways, storm drainage and site lighting. The proposed project scope has been and will continue to be developed in coordination with the Rinconada Master Plan for the surrounding park improvements, parking lot reconfiguration and adjacent public facilities. The Junior Museum & Zoo is located on one contiguous city-owned parcel of land which includes the historic Lucie Stern Community Center, Children’s Library and Theater, Girls Scout Building, Rinconada Park, Rinconada Pool, Fire Station, Power Substation, shared-use parking lot and the JMZ. The existing JMZ building is located directly on the shared property line with Walter Hays Elementary School. The existing JMZ exterior zoo is located within the Rinconada Park boundary. The build-able area of the site is further constrained by the parking lot, multiple heritage and mature specimen trees and an existing utility corridor running underneath the existing exterior zoo. The challenge of this project is to design a museum, education center and zoo adequately size to accommodate the program while working within the multiple layers of site goals and constraints: minimizing the impact and improving the interface with Rinconada Park, reconfiguring the parking lot to maximize parking count and clarify circulation, protecting heritage and mature feature trees, improving visibility and way finding along Middlefield, and integrating a new public building within the adjacent residential neighborhood context. Design Approach: Site Organization, Massing and Materiality Our design approach strives to balance the programmatic requirements for the project with the complex site constraints through clarity of plan and volume, expressing the nature of the building materials and structure, creating a unified experience between interior and exterior spaces and featuring the natural context of this site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Page 2 of 5 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The JMZ Building gracefully wraps around the existing mature Pecan Tree and Dawn Redwood Tree creating positive and negative spaces allowing the interior of the building to flow out into the exterior courtyard spaces. The low mass of the building aligns with the Middlefield Road grid while the taller volume twists to align with the grid of the GirlScout and Lucie Stern buildings resolving the two geometries of this site and respectfully stepping the mass down toward the residential neighborhood along Middlefield. The building and entry canopy wrap around the existing Dawn Redwood tree creating an exterior entry courtyard featuring the Jurassic-era tree species and serving as an exciting gathering place and entry experience into the Junior Museum and Zoo. The outdoor exhibits plaza bridges over the utility corridor and under the existing large Pecan Tree connecting the walled outdoor classroom to the building. We are striving for clarity of form and materials on the intersecting volumes of the building. The building volumes are simple rectangular forms with parapet roofs. We are proposing unique materials on each volume but tying them together with different tones of neutral colors. We are proposing a panelized fiber cement panel facade material on the tallest volume. For the middle height volume, we are proposing a flat locked seamed metal panel facade material with large storefront windows revealing and featuring the iconic ball exhibit within and creating a strong entrance from the Dawn Redwood courtyard. For the low volume along Middlefield, we are proposing cement plaster with warm, natural wood siding accents that will quietly compliment the surrounding natural context and residential neighborhood. The canopies, signage and feature windows become the accents in both material, color, form and views. We are proposing a brightly colored, acrylic material on the canopies and building signage. There are feature windows on a number of facades and site walls framing views into the exhibit hall and collections storage, out to the zoo and outdoor exhibits plaza. These accents are playful and interactive representing the child-like character of this facility. The negative spaces between the positive volumes of the building: the Dawn Redwood courtyard, the outdoor exhibits plaza, and loose in the zoo enclosure; nestle within the corners of the intertwining volumes. The materiality takes inspiration from nature: “live wood” benches possibly re-using downed trees from this site, thick walls referencing the striations of rammed earth, spiderweb cable and net structure over the zoo. Each of these exterior spaces specifically and intentionally features a live (or artificial) tree allowing nature to become an educational tool at all times. Design Approach: Program and Experience The brightly colored accent canopy and signage framing the entrance and entry courtyard will draw visitors approaching by car, bike and walking. The Dawn Redwood entry courtyard will serve as an exterior lobby with covered areas for line queuing, guest storage and safe play zones for children. There will be exciting views into the museum exhibit hall, Jurassic-era tree and plantings, playful castings in sedimentary themed wall, and covered seating. The courtyard will have wood and metal grate decking raising the walk surface to protect and feature the Dawn Redwood tree roots as well as create clear circulation for JMZ guests. The main entrance into the JMZ lobby from the exterior entry courtyard provides visitors with clear circulation directly into the interior exhibits galleries or out to the exterior loose in the zoo. The exhibits gallery is composed of double high volumes for the iconic ball machine exhibit, intimate lower height spaces, views into the zoo and animal care, and a strong connection out to the exterior exhibit plaza. There is a multi-use classroom with direct access from the museum exhibit space and small teaching kitchen creating a flexible space for holding classes, evening events, birthday parties, board meetings and more. There is a second classroom with direct access from the Dawn Redwood courtyard that features views of the Jurassic-era plantings and tree creating an exciting setting for science education. The indoor exhibit space has a strong connection to the outdoor exhibit plaza located under the Pecan Tree. Visitors will be able to explore with “messy” water, sun, wind exhibits in this outdoor space with exciting views into loose in the zoo. The PROJECT DESCRIPTION________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Page 3 of 5 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ outdoor classroom will be a walled, partially covered outdoor space perfect for outdoor science classes, evening events and zoo themed camps. The concept for the zoo is a completely netted enclosure where birds, small mammals and children can roam about freely - loose in the zoo! Within the larger netted enclosure, there will be enclosed exhibits for larger animals - bobcats, raccoons, tortoises, meerkats along with a flamingo and waterfowl pond and raised turtle pool with “crawl-thru” opportunities. The central feature of the loose in the zoo will be the large artificial tree providing experiences children to crawl around the root zone and in a future phase climb up to a tree-fort experience in the canopy (see more about phase two below). The loose in the zoo netted enclosure forms a spider-like web overhead. The loose-in-the zoo enclosure will have a wall around it’s perimeter to meet zoo accreditation requirements. This wall creates opportunities for educational and interactive exhibits, gathering spaces, and play areas for visitors in the park beyond the zoo enclosure. The exterior zoo support area located beyond loose in the zoo provide homes for the zoo animals when they are not in loose in the zoo as well as space to store zoo maintenance materials. The area will have a wall around it’s perimeter and netting over the top. The exterior service area accessed off of Middlefield will provide vehicular access to the JMZ shop and animal support spaces, house the trash enclosure, and provide a exterior corridor for staff and animal circulation. The majority of the lower mass building along the property line with Walter Hays and fronting Middlefield is devoted to program support spaces. The JMZ administration staff, Friends staff and educators have an open office space with a shared conference room, break room, teacher preparation and collections storage spaces. The state of the art collections storage spaces will properly protect the treasures entrusted to the City of Palo Alto and the JMZ per museum accreditation standards. The teachers preparation spaces will allow educators to creatively collaborate on lessons and organize supplies for the robust educational outreach program. The program animal space will house various animal species trained for educational and interaction programs with visitors and students along with animal care and animal supply rooms. The wood shop will allow the museum staff to create exciting, innovative, age-appropriate, science exhibits to support the mission of engaging a child’s curiosity for science and nature. Future Phase 2: Program and Experience The JMZ Staff, City of Palo Alto and Friends are considering a future phase 2 addition to the JMZ to further enrich children’s experiences with animals, nature and science. In the location and footprint of the outdoor classroom, a future two story building is proposed with a classroom on the first floor and butterfly/insect exhibit on the second floor. The building will have one interior staircase and elevator, second floor walkways overlooking the zoo and Pecan tree canopy, and an exterior stair within loose in the zoo. Possibly the most exciting part of phase 2 is the addition of a tree-fort to the central artificial feature tree in loose in the zoo with play opportunities, small animal exhibits, and the experience of being in the trees! The design for phase 2 is conceptual at this point as currently this scope is not funded. We will not be submitting phase 2 for ARB review and approval at this time, however wanted to include the conceptual floor plan, zoo site plan, and zoo sections at the end of the drawing package for reference and to build excitement for the future build out of phase 2. Design Approach: Surrounding Site Improvements In addition to the proposed JMZ Building and Zoo, the proposed design includes site improvements to the surrounding areas: Middlefield frontage, the reconfigured shared-use parking lot, and interconnecting pathways between site facilities. The proposed JMZ building is setback approximately 24’ from the Middlefield property line allowing for a generous planted zone. We are proposing attractive native species with low water use and minimal maintenance. There is a path connecting the new striped bus drop-off zone on Middlefield (part of the Rinconada Park long range master plan) to the rest of the public PROJECT DESCRIPTION________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Page 4 of 5 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ facilities on the site. There will be improved bike paths and bike parking (both short term and long term) located close to the entrance to the JMZ and park arrival. The JMZ project and the Rinconada Park long range master plan teams are working together to reconfigure the parking lot to provide fire access, maximize parking stalls, and create safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The reconfigured shared-use parking lot includes the following improvements: •Net increase of 13 parking stalls •One improved vehicular access driveway off of Middlefield: use existing location but widened and improved; removing the existing second driveway •One vehicular access driveway off of Hopkins (proposed new location) •Two-way circulation through the parking lot with one-way circulation along the drop-off and loading zone near JMZ entrance and park arrival •Connection between the north and south parking lots, however aisles are offset to discourage traffic cutting through from Middlefield to Hopkins •Safe pedestrian routes through the parking lot: one access path between south and north parking lots, one access path from the center island to JMZ entrance We are requesting careful review and collaboration with the City’s Transportation department to ensure the intersection of Kellogg, Middlefield and improved vehicular entrance to the parking lot is safe and effective. While not included in the scope of the JMZ project, we are collaborating with the Rinconada Park long range master plan team to design the park arrival area. The goal is to create a strong entrance to the park with clear circulation from Lucie Stern, the Girl Scout Building and the JMZ. The edge of the park along the zoo enclosure will be designed to enrich the park experience with small gathering and seating areas, natural landscape and play zones such as a small grassy knoll, and artistic and educational installations along the zoo wall. Project Process and Preliminary Review Focus CAW Architects and the Friends presented to the ARB in spring of 2015 with a different, larger version of this project. After two presentations to the Parks and Recreation Commission last year, the commissioners made it clear that the previous zoo footprint and zoo support building posed too great of an impact on parkland and would not be acceptable. The Friends and CAW Architects took on the challenge to tighten the belt on the project program and re-evaluate build able square footage on the site. The site plan and proposed footprint included in this submittal reflect these efforts and were presented to the PRC in April 2016. The commissioners unanimously provided a vote of support for the project and reconfigured relationship with the park. The JMZ design team are continuing to work with the Rinconada Park long range plan team to ensure compatibility between the two design efforts. The environmental review through the CEQA process for both the JMZ project and Rinconada Park long range plan is underway with the following technical studies nearing completion: air quality, cultural resources, transportation and traffic elements, arborist reports, and historic review. The findings of the historic review were that the existing JMZ building does not contribute to the significance of the adjacent Lucie Stern Cultural Center, nor is it eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, nor the National Register of Historic Places. The CEQA document is scheduled to be released to the public in spring of 2017 and go before council for approval by summer of 2017. In this preliminary Architectural Review Board submittal and review process, we are requesting a focused review of the proposed site organization, massing, and materials as they relate to the surrounding context and the mission of the Junior Museum and Zoo. After receiving preliminary ARB comments, CAW and the Friends will work toward a formal review submittal early spring of 2017. PROJECT DESCRIPTION________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT C: AMENDED POLICY CITY OF PALO ALTO GREEN BUILDING POLICY FOR CITY BUILDINGS CLEAN VERSION The City of Palo Alto intends to incorporate sustainable, green building practices into the design and construction of City buildings, as part of the Council’s overall Sustainability Policy. Specifically, City buildings shall be designed and constructed according to the following criteria: 1. New Construction – All new City buildings over 5,000 square feet shall be designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver or equivalent rating system certification, except as provided in #3 below. 2. Renovations, Additions and Other Buildings – All renovations of or additions to existing City facilities shall be designed to use environmentally sound, green building techniques and materials. LEED or equivalent checklists shall be used as guidelines to identify and enhance green building measures. Substantial renovations or additions of 5,000 square feet or greater shall be evaluated by a designated green building professional to determine the costs and benefits of adding or enhancing green building features. Such facilities shall generally be designed to achieve LEED or LEED Existing Building (LEED-EB) or equivalent rating certification, except as provided in #3 below. 3. Exceptions – Exceptions for new buildings and for substantial renovations and additions may be approved where the City Council determines that LEED or equivalent certification would be impractical or unreasonably costly and that all reasonable green building measures are otherwise incorporated into the project design. Examples of projects that may be considered for exceptions include, but are not limited to: a) buildings requiring compliance with historic preservation criteria, b) additions where compliance with the remainder of the facility or site is impractical, c) projects requiring joint funding with other jurisdictions, and d) buildings that are primarily intended for storage or equipment purposes rather than human occupancy. 4. Certification – For projects requiring compliance with LEED (or equivalent) criteria, the City Council may, in lieu of LEED certification by the U.S. Green Building Council, require independent verification of LEED compliance by a LEED-accredited professional, where it is determined that the cost of certification is excessive and the funds could be better used to enhance the green building features of the project. 5. Site Improvement Projects – Careful planning and consideration shall be given to improvements to sites containing City buildings, parks, and/or open spaces. Projects should emphasize the preservation of native plant and animal species, incorporate drainage and runoff control measures into landscape features, discourage impervious landscaping and construction, provide protection of creek and riparian environments and water quality, and promote the use of drought-resistant landscaping. 6. Maintenance of Existing City Buildings and Facilities – Life cycle cost analysis shall be undertaken for building system or component replacement projects where appropriate in the judgment of the Public Works Director or his designee in an effort to specify the most energy, water and maintenance efficient systems in relation to initial cost. 12-03-07 Page 2 7. Reuse and Demolition – Existing City facilities and materials shall be reused where possible to reduce the generation of solid waste and expenditure of energy, water and other resources to create new facilities, where consistent with City objectives for providing desirable facilities and services for residents and businesses. On projects where demolition is required, in order to maximize the amount of waste materials diverted from landfills, deconstruction techniques shall be employed whenever practical, and all salvageable items shall be recovered and put to appropriate use. 8. Demonstration and Education – To the extent practical, City facilities should demonstrate leadership and educate the public about sustainability and green building practices and features, through the use of interpretive signs and exhibits at the facility, and by providing information on the City’s website. Not Yet Approved 161121 jb 0131537 1 Rev. Nov. 21 2016 Ordinance No. _______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning Regulations), Section 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. As part of the City’s annual Zoning Code update, the City desires to improve its Architectural Review findings to ensure robust design review, to eliminate repetitive findings and to remove outmoded and unnecessary findings. B. On September 3 and October 1, 2015, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the draft updated architectural review findings and provided input. Subsequently, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the AR findings and recommended that Council approve them without any changes. C. On April 11, 2016, the Council reviewed the draft findings, suggested revisions and directed staff and the ARB to review the updated language and offer approval, feedback or changes. D. On June 16, 2016, the ARB reviewed the updated findings and provided additional comments. E. On August 10, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the updated findings and concurred with the ARB and Staff’s comments. F. On September 12, and November 14, 2016, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the current draft of the updated architectural review findings. SECTION 2. Subdivision (d) of Section 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 18.76.020 Architectural Review. *** (d) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is met: (1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: Not Yet Approved 161121 jb 0131537 2 Rev. Nov. 21 2016 (a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. (4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the 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; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept; Not Yet Approved 161121 jb 0131537 3 Rev. Nov. 21 2016 (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (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 and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; (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) ITie 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 following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: (A) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (B) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (C) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (D) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (E) Use sustainable building materials; (F) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (G) Create healthy indoor environments; and (H) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). SECTION 3. Adoption of this ordinance is found to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)because: (1) the activity (rewording of Architectural Review findings) is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significantly effect on the environment, and (2) this ‘minor alteration in land use limitations’ does not result in any changes in land use or density. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the ordinance and Not Yet Approved 161121 jb 0131537 4 Rev. Nov. 21 2016 each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO 1451 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA [15188] PREPRARED FOR: DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES JULY 20, 2016 REVISED Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 Page & Turnbull, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 2 II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS ............................................................................ 3 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES .................................................................................... 3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 3 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ..................................................................... 3 PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY .................................................................................................. 3 HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT (2004) ....................................................................................................... 4 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 5 SITE ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 EXTERIOR ............................................................................................................................................ 6 INTERIOR ........................................................................................................................................... 12 OUTDOOR ZOO .............................................................................................................................. 13 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ................................................................................................ 14 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 16 PALO ALTO HISTORY ....................................................................................................................... 16 HISTORY OF JUNIOR MUSEUMS IN THE UNITED STATES ............................................................ 19 PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO ...................................................................................... 20 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY ................................................................................................. 22 OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS ........................................................................................................... 28 ORIGINAL ARCHITECT & BUILDER .................................................................................................. 28 V. EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 30 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES & CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................................... 30 INTEGRITY ......................................................................................................................................... 32 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 33 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 34 VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 35 PUBLISHED WORKS .......................................................................................................................... 35 PUBLIC RECORDS ............................................................................................................................. 35 NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS .................................................................................................... 35 INTERNET SOURCES......................................................................................................................... 36 Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 1 Page & Turnbull, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) Part 1 has been prepared at the request of David J. Powers & Associates for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo in Palo Alto. The building was constructed in 1941 and is located within Rinconada Park on the north side of Middlefield Road (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The property is officially addressed at 1451 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, California 94301 (APN 003-46-006). Figure 1. Parcel map of Rinconada Park and 1451 Middlefield Avenue (outlined in red). Source: City of Palo Alto Online Parcel Reports, 2016; edited by Page & Turnbull. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 2 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 2. Detail of subject parcel map showing the current footprint of 1451 Middlefield Road in pink. Source: City of Palo Alto Online Parcel Reports, 2016; edited by Page & Turnbull. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION Constructed in 1941, the building at 1451 Middlefield Road has continually housed the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. The institution of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo was founded in 1934 and belongs to a nation-wide pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th century. The building at 1451 Middlefield Road has undergone significant alterations over its history and the building has been found not to be eligible for listing the National Register or California Registers under any criteria. METHODOLOGY This Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 provides a summary of previous historical surveys and ratings, a site description, historic context statement, and an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. This report discusses the institutional history of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo as well as the physical history of the building at 1451 Middlefield Road which was constructed to house the museum in 1941. Page & Turnbull prepared this report using research collected at various local repositories, including the Palo Alto Public Library, Palo Alto Historical Association, City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, Online Archive of California, and various other online sources. Information from Page & Turnbull’s previous historical assessment in 2004 also informed this report. Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit in February 2016 to review the existing conditions of the property and formulate the descriptions and assessments included in this report. All photographs were taken by Page & Turnbull in February 2016 unless otherwise noted. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 3 Page & Turnbull, Inc. II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building at 1451 Middlefield Road. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. 1451 Middlefield Road is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually or as part of a registered historic district. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. 1451 Middlefield Road is not currently listed in the California Register of Historical Resources individually or as part of a registered historic district. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE Properties listed by, or under review by, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) between “1” and “7” to establish their historical significance in relation to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NR) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR). Properties with a Status Code of “1” or “2” are either eligible for listing in the California Register or the National Register, or are already listed in one or both of the registers. Properties assigned Status Codes of “3” or “4” appear to be eligible for listing in either register, but normally require more research to support this rating. Properties assigned a Status Code of “5” have typically been determined to be locally significant or to have contextual importance. Properties with a Status Code of “6” are not eligible for listing in either register. Finally, a Status Code of “7” means that the resource either has not been evaluated for the National Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation. 1451 Middlefield Road is not listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with a status code. The most recent update to the CHRIS database for Santa Clara County that lists the Status Codes was in April 2012. PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY The City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The inventory is organized under the following four Categories: Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 4 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character. Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. 1451 Middlefield Road is not currently listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under any category. The subject parcel, which encompasses all of Rinconada Park, is designated in City of Palo Alto records as a Category 1 property because of the Lucie Stern Community Center. The Category 1 designation does not apply to any other building or facility within the park. HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT (2004) In 2003, Page & Turnbull conducted a historical assessment of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo facility as part of the Conservation Assessment Program grant awarded by Heritage Preservation. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the potential architectural and historical significance of 1451 Middlefield Road and to evaluate whether or not the building contributed to the significance of the adjacent Lucie Stern Community Center. Page & Turnbull’s report included a building description, brief history of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, and a preliminary assessment of the building’s individual and contributing significance. The report concluded that the building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in a local, state, or national register, and that the building does not contribute to the significance of the Lucie Stern Cultural Center. The report also indicated that in the event of a proposed project at the site, the building’s significance under National and California register Criterion A/1 (events) should be further investigated. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 5 Page & Turnbull, Inc. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION SITE The building at 1451 Middlefield Road, which houses the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, stands along the southwest edge of Rinconada Park, an 18,257-acre parcel in the Community Center neighborhood (Figure 3). A large surface parking lot separates the building from the Lucie Stern Community Center and the Girl Scout Hall. A wood-post and wire fence encloses a lawn, open “science yard” used for activities, and covered sitting area near the primary entrance at the northwest side of the building. The outdoor zoo is located northeast of the museum building. A tall wood slat fence surrounds the zoo area and animal enclosures, separating it from the parking lot and nearby playground. Originally constructed in 1941, the one-and-two-story building was designed in a vernacular Ranch style. The wood frame building sits on a concrete foundation and occupies approximately 7,051 square feet. The walls are clad in textured stucco. The building is composed of a U-shaped arrangement of two main volumes with central, connecting hyphens. The northwest and southeast volumes have side-gabled roofs. A two-story tower capped with a hipped roof is located within the northwest volume. Between the building’s two main volumes is an enclosed courtyard with a flat roof. The gable and hipped roofs are clad with wood shakes and the central flat roof is covered with built-up roofing. Figure 3. Aerial photograph of 1451 Middlefield Road, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (outlined in red). North is up. Source: Google Maps, 2016; edited by Page & Turnbull. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 6 Page & Turnbull, Inc. EXTERIOR Primary (Northwest) Façade The primary façade faces northwest onto a small lawn and a parking lot. The façade is composed of two one-story, side-gabled wings extending from the two-story tower, all a part of the northwest volume (Figure 4). The north (left) wing contains a band of three wood-frame sliding windows, set within the upper portion of the wall (Figure 5). The two-story tower contains the building’s primary entrance at center, accessed by a wide concrete landing with stairs and a ramp. A fully glazed, wood-frame double door leads into the entrance lobby. The door is flanked by two-lite fixed wood-frame sidelights. Two square stucco-clad posts are located on either side of two-story ground floor. The second story of the tower projects slightly from the main plane of the façade. The lower half is clad in flush horizontal wood siding and features a full-width wood sign reading “Palo Alto Junior Museum.” The upper half is clad in wood lap siding and contains three double-hung wood-frame windows with wood-frame screens. A metal spire sits at the peak of the hipped roof (Figure 6). The south (right) wing is approximately twice the length of the north wing. The left portion of the wing contains a bay of seven almost full-height fixed wood windows. The eighth bay contains a solid wood door with fixed transom (Figure 7 and Figure 8). Right of these windows is a band of three wood-frame sliding windows, set in the upper portion of the wall, and a solid wood door with fixed transom (Figure 9). This façade terminates in overhanging roof eaves with exposed rafter tails, simple fascia, and metal gutters. Figure 4. Primary (northwest) façade of 1451 Middlefield Road, view looking southeast. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 7 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Southwest Façade The southwest façade faces Middlefield Avenue and a lawn with a large hedge (Figure 10). The west (left) portion of the façade, part of the northwest volume, contains no fenestration and terminates in an end gable (Figure 11). A small wood vent is located below the gable peak. At center is a connecting hyphen that features a side-gabled roof, which contains paired solid wood doors with Figure 5. Windows at the north wing of the primary façade, view looking northeast. Figure 6. Two-story tower and primary entrance at primary façade, view looking southeast. Figure 7. South wing of primary façade, view looking southwest. Figure 8. Detail view of window bay at south wing of primary faced, view looking northeast. Figure 9. Southernmost portion of the south wing at primary façade, view looking southeast. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 8 Page & Turnbull, Inc. metal vents. Above this entrance is a band of five windows. The fixed wood-frame transom window above the entrance is flanked by metal-frame awning windows (Figure 12). The east (right) portion of the façade, part of the southeast volume, contains one wood door east of center accessed by a low concrete landing, and a wood vent below the gable peak. This portion of the façade terminates in an end gable, similar to the west portion of the façade (Figure 13). The entire southwest façade has a wide overhanging roof eave, which features exposed rafter tails and a simple fascia. Rear (Southeast) Façade The rear (southeast) façade faces the paved parking lot of the adjacent Walter Hayes Elementary School. This façade of the one-story southeast volume contains no fenestration (Figure 14 and Figure 15). A continuous side gable extends the full width of the façade. The north portion of this volume is an addition that features a slightly taller gable roof. The gable peaks of the two roofs are parallel but off-set by a few feet (Figure 16). The shallow roof eave at the rear façade contains a simple stucco soffit and metal gutter. Several full-height vertical cracks were observed in the stucco. Figure 10. Southwest façade, view looking northeast across Middlefield Road. Figure 11. Left portion of the southwest façade, view looking northeast. Figure 12. Connecting hyphen, wood double doors, and band of windows, view looking northeast. Figure 13. Right portion of the southwest façade, view looking northeast. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 9 Page & Turnbull, Inc. The second story of the two-story tower contains two wood-frame double-hung windows on its southeast façade. Vents and ductwork on the roof are visible at this façade between the two windows (Figure 17). Figure 14. Southeast façade, view looking northwest from the adjacent school parking lot. Figure 15. Southeast façade, view looking northeast. Figure 16. Taller gable-roof addition at the north portion of the façade, view looking northwest. Figure 17. Southeast façade of the two-story tower, view looking northwest. Double-hung windows and mechanical equipment are just visible. Northeast Façade The northeast façade faces the outdoor zoo and exhibit area. This façade features the northwest and southeast volumes, as well as a recessed center portion and an L-shaped patio (Figure 18 and Figure 19). The northeast façade of the southeast (left) volume contains a single wood door and a small wood vent below the gable peak. The rafter tails on the northeast façade have been removed from the overhanging roof eave. The inner northwest façade of the southeast volume has a band of four wood-frame awning windows and three large fixed wood-frame windows further south (Figure 20 and Figure 21). An open trellis overhang extends from the shallow roof eave of the northwest façade. This volume’s inner southwest façade contains one wood door (Figure 22). The center portion of the northeast façade contains the entrance to the museum space and the enclosed courtyard. It features a five-bay bank of full-height wood-frame windows, flanked by single wood doors in the outer bays. A wood-slat bee enclosure projects from center. This portion of the façade terminates in a side-gabled roof, obscured by a wood trellis and partially open roof sheltering the patio (Figure 23-Figure 26). Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 10 Page & Turnbull, Inc. The northwest (right) volume (the north wing from the primary facade) features several embedded display cases, set low in the wall to be at a child’s eye level and with wide sills containing interpretive panels. The inner southeast façade contains three display cases and a solid wood door (Figure 19 and Figure 26). Display cases are wood frame with a metal lip along the upper edge. The northeast façade of this volume contains two display cases, a solid wood door accessed by a concrete ramp, and one fixed wood-frame window (Figure 27 and Figure 28). Figure 18. Northeast façade of the Junior Museum, view looking southwest from the zoo area. Figure 19. L-shaped patio at center of northeast façade, view looking southwest. Figure 20. Awning windows at the inner northwest façade of the southeast volume, view looking southeast. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 11 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 21. Wood windows at the inner northwest façade of the southeast volume further south, view looking southeast from patio. Figure 22. Inner southwest façade of the southeast volume, view looking northeast from the L-shaped patio. Figure 23. L-shaped patio, bee-enclosure, and bank of windows at center portion of northeast façade, view looking south. Figure 24. Wood door left of bee enclosure, view looking southwest. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 12 Page & Turnbull, Inc. INTERIOR The central interior space of the museum is the enclosed courtyard at the center of the building (Figure 29). The perimeter of the enclosed courtyard has an angled plaster ceiling, while the center portion is raised and features exposed beams. Classrooms, storage, and staff rooms are located along the southeast and southwest sides of the building. The northwest portion of the interior contains an open exhibit room, lobby at the ground floor of the two-story tower, and staff room in the north wing. The second story contains offices. Figure 25. Windows and entrance at northeast façade, view looking northeast from museum interior. Figure 26. Entrance to museum interior at northeast façade, view looking southwest. Figure 27. Northeast façade of northwest volume, containing display cases, wood door (shown while open), and fixed wood window, view looking southwest. Figure 28. Detail view of low display cases, view looking southwest. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 13 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 29. Enclosed courtyard interior exhibit space, view looking southwest. OUTDOOR ZOO The outdoor zoo area is located northeast of the museum building (Figure 30-Figure 33). Surrounded by a wood-slat fence, the zoo is a collection of enclosures arranged around a pond. Landscaping surrounds the concrete-basin, which features an arched wooden bridge. The northwest side of the zoo contains four polygonal concrete enclosures. Three are capped with hipped conical roofs that are clad in wood shake, while the raccoon enclosure is covered by large wood beams. Some enclosures are clad with stucco while others are exposed rough-faced concrete masonry units (CMU). The enclosures contains both wood frame and metal frame windows. A raised concrete fountain and a concrete tortoise enclosure are located in the north portion of the zoo. The southeast side of the zoo contains a bobcat enclosure with a CMU viewing area and wood post fence, as well as a wood-framed and screened aviary. Figure 30. Zoo area with pond and bridge at center, view looking north. Figure 31. Enclosures at northwest side of the zoo, view looking west. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 14 Page & Turnbull, Inc. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo is located in the Community Center neighborhood, which is bounded by Middlefield Road to the west, Channing Avenue to the north, Newell Road to the east, and Embarcadero Road to the south. The neighborhood is characterized by the large open space of Rinconada Park in the southern portion, and single-family residential buildings in the northern portion. The Walter Hayes Elementary School is adjacent to and southeast of the subject property (Figure 34). The Lucie Stern Community Center is located northwest across the surface parking lot and the Girl Scout Hall is northeast of the subject building (Figure 35). Construction of the Spanish Colonial-style Community Center was completed in 1940, and the log cabin-style Girl Scout Hall was opened several years before, in 1926. The remainder of Rinconada Park is open lawn and contains a children’s playground (Figure 35). Residences across Middlefield Road are one- and two-story English Revival, Mission Revival, and contemporary styles, and were constructed from the mid-1920s through the 2000s (Figure 37). Figure 32. Raccoon enclosure and fountain at northern portion of zoo, view looking northwest. Figure 33. Bobcat enclosure at southeast side of zoo, view looking northeast. Figure 34. Walter Hayes Elementary School, view looking northeast from Middlefield Road. Figure 35. Rear façade of the Community Center, across parking lot from the Junior Museum and Zoo, view looking northwest. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 15 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 36. Open space of Rinconada Park, view looking north. Figure 37. Residence across Middlefield Road, view looking southwest from the museum. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 16 Page & Turnbull, Inc. IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT PALO ALTO HISTORY The earliest known settlement of the Palo Alto area was by the Ohlone people. The region was colonized by Gaspar de Portola in 1769 as part of Alto California. The Spanish and Mexican governments carved the area into large ranchos, and the land that would become Palo Alto belonged to several, including Rancho Corte Madera, Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, and Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.1 The subject property at 1451 Middlefield Road was located on what was formerly Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito, and, at more than 2,200 acres, covered all of the original Palo Alto town site. The northern and eastern boundaries were distinguished by San Francisquito Creek, while the western boundary was located near El Camino Real and the southern boundary paralleled Embarcadero Road farther south.2 These land grants were honored in the cession of California to the United States, but parcels were subdivided and sold throughout the nineteenth century. The current city of Palo Alto contains the former township of Mayfield. In 1882, railroad magnate and California politician Leland Stanford purchased 1,000 acres adjacent to Mayfield to add to his larger estate. Stanford’s vast holdings became known as the Palo Alto Stock Farm. The Stanfords’ teenage son died in 1884, leading the couple to create a university in his honor. Contrary to contemporary institutions, the Stanfords wanted a co-educational and non-denominational university.3 On March 9, 1885, the university was founded through an endowment act by the California Assembly and Senate. Using the Stock Farm land, they established Stanford University In 1886, Stanford went to Mayfield where he was interested in founding his university since the school needed a nearby service town to support its operations. However, the Stanfords required alcohol to be banned from the town because they believed that the university’s mission and community would be negatively impacted by any nearby presence of alcohol.4 With 13 popular saloons then operating in Mayfield, the town eventually rejected the Stanfords’ request. Seeking an alternative, Stanford decided in 1894 to found the town of Palo Alto with aid from his friend Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Hopkins purchased and subdivided 740 acres of private land.5 Known as both the Hopkins Tract and University Park, it was bounded by the San Francisquito Creek to the north and the railroad tracks and Stanford University campus to the south (Figure 38). The subject property of 1451 Middlefield Road was located at the northern edge of the first platted portion of Palo Alto. 1 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed December 22, 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. 2 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993), 16-17. 3 “History of Stanford,” Stanford University, accessed December 22, 2014, http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/. 4 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed December 22, 2014, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the- historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA 5 “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 17 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 38. Map of the original town of Palo Alto. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University. Palo Alto was a temperance town where no alcohol could be served. A new train stop was created along University Avenue and the new town flourished serving the university. Palo Alto grew to be much more prosperous than its southeastern neighbor Mayfield. Many people employed at Stanford University chose to move there, and it was considered the safer and more desirable alternative of the two towns.6 The residents were mostly middle and working class, with a pocket of University professors clustered in the neighborhood deemed Professorville. The development of a local streetcar in 1906 and the interurban railway to San Jose in 1910 facilitated access to jobs outside the city and to the University, encouraging more people to move to Palo Alto.7 In reaction to the decline of Mayfield, its residents voted to become a “dry” town in 1904, with sole exception of allowing the Mayfield Brewery to continue. However, the town was plagued by financial issues and could not compete with Palo Alto’s growth. In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into the city of Palo Alto.8 6 Matt Bowling, “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com, website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php. 7 Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore, 1-4. 8 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 18 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Palo Alto was one of the first California cities to establish a City Planning Commission (CPC). In 1917, zoning matters were tasked to this advisory commission in order to control development and design. Regulations on signage, public landscaping and lighting, and appropriateness within residential areas fell under the purview of the CPC. From this early period, Palo Alto has maintained control over the built environment, which has resulted its relatively low density and consistent aesthetic. However, the zoning controls in the early part of the twentieth century played a part in the racial segregation of the city and the exclusion of certain groups from residential areas. Several neighborhoods were created with race covenants regarding home ownership and occupation, until this practice was ruled unconstitutional in 1948.9 The academic nature of the town prevented factories or other big industries from settling in Palo Alto, limiting the range of people who would populate the area. Like the rest of the nation, Palo Alto suffered through the Great Depression in the 1930s and did not grow substantially. World War II brought an influx of military personnel and their families to the Peninsula. When the war ended, Palo Alto saw rapid growth. Many families who had been stationed on the Peninsula by the military or who worked in associated industries chose to stay, and the baby boom began. Palo Alto’s population more than doubled from 16,774 in 1940 to 33,753 in 1953.10 Stanford University was also a steady attraction for residents and development in the city. The city center greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s (Figure 39), gathering parcels that would house new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation.11 Figure 39. The expansion of Palo Alto from 1894 to 1952. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University. 9 Corbett and Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update,” 1-7. 10 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. 11 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 19 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Palo Alto annexed a vast area of mostly undeveloped land between 1959 and 1968. This area, west of the Foothill Expressway, has remained protected open space. Small annexations continued into the 1970s, contributing to the discontinuous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains closely tied to Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry dominates other sectors of business, as is the case with most cities within Silicon Valley. Palo Alto consciously maintains its high proportion of open space to development and the suburban feeling and scale of its architecture. HISTORY OF JUNIOR MUSEUMS IN THE UNITED STATES The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, located at 1451 Middlefield Road, belongs to a nation-wide movement of children’s museums focused on nature and science education that began at the turn of the 20th century. The development of museums for children and young adults is underrepresented in museum historiography, partially due to the fact that most institutions evolved out of local motivation. The inherently local nature of these museums thwarts developing a widespread understanding of how many developed and when they were founded. Differences in naming between “children’s museums, “junior museums,” and nature, science, and “discovery” centers geared towards children also contribute to the lack of a comprehensive history. Some histories draw strict distinctions between these types of institutions while others considered them part of the same movement.12 The first children’s museum to open was the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, established in 1899. Envisioned as a place where children could touch and play with the exhibits, the purpose of the museum was to engage children’s imaginations and attention while learning about science and natural history. The museum occupied the historic Adams House, formerly used as a storage building for the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences.13 The success of the Brooklyn Children’s Museum led to the establishment of the Boston Children’s Museum in 1913, Detroit Children’s Museum in 1917, Children’s Museum of Indianapolis in 1925, and several more in the 1920s and 1930s.14 The Palo Alto Junior Museum opened in 1934 during this early wave of museum popularity. Having a children’s museum separate from traditional museums is noted to be a “particularly American museological phenomenon.”15 Many European and other American museums contented themselves with children’s rooms, if they allowed children in at all. Despite this American trend, it was not a wide-spread practice for early institutions. In 1941, it is believed that only eight children’s museums occupied their own facility – and not necessarily one constructed for their use.16 Early museums almost universally made use of large, empty homes and expanded or moved as necessary. The ideology behind children’s museums was not just to educate children, but to inspire them with an institution that they felt was created for them. They were not intruders or barred from 12 Shannon O’Donnell, “Junior Grows Up: The Development of the Tallahassee Museum, 1957-1992” (Masters thesis, Florida State University, 2009), 6-7; Edward Porter Alexander and Mary Alexander, Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Fundamentals of Museums (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008), 15, 167; “Palo Alto Community Center: Junior Museum here one of 16 in the entire United States,” Palo Alto Times, June 22, 1950, 22. 13 Edward Porter Alexander, The Museum in America: Innovators and Pioneers (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 1997), 133. 14 “Timeline,” Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, accessed February 29, 2016, http://thehistory.childrensmuseum.org/timeline; “History,” Boston Children’s Museum, accessed February 29, 2016, http://www.bostonchildrensmuseum.org/about/history. 15 Thomas Schlereth, quoted by Rebecca Stiles Onion, “Picturing Nature and Childhood at the American Museum of Natural History and the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, 1899-1930,” Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 4.3 (2001), 450-451. 16 Ibid. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 20 Page & Turnbull, Inc. participating as they might be at a traditional museum. These institutions provided educational tools outside of regular classrooms during an era of heightened interest in childhood education reform and in the study and appreciation of nature. Museum collections consisted of a range of items and exhibits, including dioramas, fossils, taxidermy, wiring and radio systems, and anything that could be donated or collected from local sources or cast-offs from other museums. They also offered outdoor trips, art classes, lectures, and sometimes classes for adults. In this manner, children’s museums fostered an active and continuing community that traditional adult museums lacked. One figure that looms large in the history of children’s museums is John Ripley Forbes. He is credited with establishing over 200 nature centers and science museums for children throughout the United States. From a young age, Forbes was influenced by his neighbor William T. Hornaday, noted naturalist and director of the Bronx Zoo. In the late 1930s, Forbes convinced the city to convert an abandoned mansion and opened his first museum, the Kansas City Museum of History and Science. In 1937, he established the William T. Hornaday Foundation to fund children’s museums, which would later become the National Science for Youth Foundation.17 Forbes’ museums had a strong outdoor education component, based on a belief in the benefits of exposing children to nature. During the 1950s, he lived in Sacramento and influenced several institutions throughout California. Forbes died in 2006, and his impact on the children’s museum movement is only recently coming to light.18 During and after World War II, the youth museum movement gained momentum. Science education was placed in a national spotlight by the war, Cold War politics, and the space race. The United States government provided funds for museums, recognizing their education potential and widespread influence.19 By report of the Association of Children’s Museums, by 1975 there were 38 children’s museums in the United States. Based on the strict criteria by which the Association defines “children’s museum,” it is likely that far more youth museums were operating by that time. Other studies postulate that by the 1960s, over 40 children’s museums, youth and junior museums were open.20 Today, there are over 200 specifically children’s museums in the United States, as well as hundreds of youth-centered education centers.21 The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo is not a member of the Association of Children’s Museums, which officially lists 33 institutions in California. PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO In the midst of the Great Depression, Palo Alto resident Josephine O’Hara proposed that the community create a small museum to occupy the area’s young children. A “leisure time” committee existed for adults, but there were hardly any activities or engagements for children. O’Hara had visited the children’s museums in Brooklyn and Boston and decided that a similar institution would appeal to the Palo Alto community. In January 1934, O’Hara presented the idea of a children’s museum to the community center commission and the public. A nine-member committee was formed to study the feasibility of such a scheme and to prepare a small exhibition for a spring fair.22 17 Margalit Fox, “John Ripley Forbes, 93, Who Planted Many Nature Museums, is Dead,” New York Times, September 5, 2006, accessed February 24, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/obituaries/05forbes.html; “Mr. Appleseed,” Time, December 21, 1953, 65-66. 18 Gary Ferguson, Nature’s Keeper: John Ripley Forbes and the Children’s Nature Movement (Helena, MT: Sweetgrass Books, 2012). 19 O’Donnell, “Junior Grows Up,” 2009, 12. 20 Herminia Weihsin Din, “An Investigation of Children’s Museums in the United States – Their Past, Present, and Future: A Proposed Study,” Marilyn Zurmuehlin Working Papers in Art Education 15 (1999): 63-69. 21 Association of Children’s Museums online database, accessed February 29, 2016. http://www.childrensmuseums.org/childrens-museums/find-a-childrens-museum/ 22 Phyllis Mackall, “Palo Alto Junior Museum’s 25th Year Observed,” Palo Alto Times, July 16, 1959. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 21 Page & Turnbull, Inc. The idea caught immediate public support, and the first iteration of the museum was housed for four months in the art room of the Palo Alto Public Library. In July 1934, the Children’s Museum (as it was known then) officially opened. Josephine O’Hara was the curator and 4,342 children visited the museum during its first year.23 Inspired by the burgeoning children’s museum movement on the East Coast, this institution appears to be the first museum of its kind west of the Mississippi River. In November 1934, the museum formalized its board of directors and established a membership program. The exhibits moved from the library into the basement of Sherman Grade School. Constantly growing, the main branch of the museums and its offices were established in the basement underneath a wing of the Community Center in 1937, while some exhibits remained in the school basement for two more years. During these early years the museum staff were partially supported by WPA (Works Progress Administration) and NYA (National Youth Administration) funds, and volunteers were key components of the museum’s operation. This early period from 1934-1940 saw significant growth in the volume of exhibits and items for the collection, as well as popularity among the community. Summer activities were held at the Addison School, outdoor activity and hikes were led by Josephine O’Hara, and temporary exhibits rotated through five local schools. Attendance continued to increase; by 1940, child visitors totaled 12,702.24 Part of the motivation behind the museum was to imbue the children with initiative, interest, and inner resources that would equip them to deal with another economic depression and to be leaders in the future. In 1941, a gift of $10,000 was made by the local Margaret Frost Foundation to fund construction of a new facility for the museum. The City of Palo Alto offered a portion of land in Rinconada Park, and the museum found a permanent home. Contemporary reports claim that Palo Alto was the first children’s museum to construct its own facility, and research has not uncovered any evidence to the contrary. In order to appeal to young patrons who objected to being called “children,” the museum’s name was officially changed to the Palo Alto Junior Museum.25 Almost immediately after the building’s opening, a $12,000 grant was awarded to the Museum by the philanthropic Columbia Foundation of San Francisco to build a new science wing. Local newspapers constantly reported new activities of the museum, from new acquisitions or traveling exhibits of Native American baskets or African masks to the meetings of hobby groups that included art, ceramics, archery, woodworking, and stamp collection. During the summer vacation, the museum led at least four activities six days a week, not including the regular collection. The variety of programs offered by the Junior Museum seemed almost endless.26 According to local press, as of June 1950 there were only sixteen children’s museums in the United States.27 Given the varied nature of youth museums, their focuses, and their names, it is difficult to know if this was indeed true, but research has not found evidence contradicting this claim. 23 Gene Hammond, “Children’s Museum: First in the United States,” Peninsula Life, August 1948, 20. 24 “Palo Alto Community Center: Junior Museum here one of 16 in the entire United States,” Palo Alto Times, June 22, 1950, 22; “Children have place to ride their hobbies,” Palo Alto Times, March 7, 1941; “Brief History of Formation and Development of the Children’s Museum of Palo Alto, Inc.,” August 1941, Palo Alto Historical Association. 25 “Junior Museum building will open in October,” Palo Alto Times, 1941, 8A; Gene Hammond, “Children’s Museum: First in the United States,” Peninsula Life, August 1948, 20; Palo Alto Junior Museum “Golden Anniversary” program, 1984. 26 Verdella Rose, “Youngsters will get lots of sun riding Children’s Museum hobbies,” Palo Alto Times, June 18, 1941. 27 “Palo Alto Community Center: Junior Museum here one of 16 in the entire United States,” Palo Alto Times, June 22, 1950, 22. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 22 Page & Turnbull, Inc. The institution continued to grow in size and popularity, and in 1969, a remodeled and expanded museum opened. The adjoining zoo was opened, creating great excitement about a permanent collection of birds, snakes, raccoons, a bobcat, and even a golden eagle. During the mid-20th century, children’s museums all over the country began having live animal collections, zoos, or partnering with wildlife preserves to foster a better appreciation and understanding for animals and the natural world. Economic difficulties for the City of Palo Alto in the 1980s threatened the zoo’s continuation.28 The local community rallied to save it, and today the zoo features more than 50 animal species.29 The zoo remains an essential amusement for children today. The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo continues to play an active role in the community and is beloved by generations of Palo Alto and San Francisco Bay Area residents. Its mission to educate and engage children in the fields of science, nature, and art remains strong, and over 150,000 people visit the museum each year.30 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY The chronology in the following table provides a list of alterations for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo based on available building permits: Date Permit # Architect/Builder Applicant Work 1941 None available Dole Ford Thompson; Aro & Okerman City of Palo Alto Original construction of the subject building 1948 84-913 None listed City of Palo Alto Front office remodel: create new lobby office and remove existing doors at back wall 4/12/1968 27421 GMI Construction City of Palo Alto Construction of addition and remodeling of museum building 6/21/1968 16853 Stanford Electric City of Palo Alto Electrical work 6/26/1968 11569 GMI Construction City of Palo Alto Installation of “electrical apparatus” 6/13/1975 4026 Menlo Oaks Plumbing City of Palo Alto Plumbing work 6/10/1983 83-450 None listed City of Palo Alto Remove interior pocket doors and replaced with hinge types 4/13/1987 87-758 City of Palo Alto Facilities Management City of Palo Alto Renovations to enclosures at northwest side of zoo, including new cut-faced block wall cladding and wire partitions 28 Paul Gullixson, “A plan to save children’s zoo in Palo Alto,” Palo Alto Times, June 10, 1988, A-1. 29 “About the Junior Museum and Zoo,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 20, 2016. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/jmz/ 30 Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, “The JMZ Initiative,” 5. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 23 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Date Permit # Architect/Builder Applicant Work 7/6/1988 89-858 City of Palo Alto Facilities Management City of Palo Alto New trellis canopy at northeast façade entrance 1/17/1992 92-467 None listed City of Palo Alto Installation of door at raccoon cage 12/6/1994 94-3253 Ernie Erickson City of Palo Alto Install ADA hardware, accessible threshold and stair hardware 8/21/1996 96-2661 CSS Associates City of Palo Alto Install door hardware, landing, and ramp hardware (presumed to be at primary façade) 12/9/1996 96-3837 Hugo Estrada City of Palo Alto Install two water heaters and new electrical outlets 1996 96-3817 Z. Johnson City of Palo Alto Unspecified plumbing and electrical work 2/5/1999 99-315 Salas O’Brien Engineers City of Palo Alto Install new fluorescent strip lighting in exhibit hall (enclosed courtyard) 4/13/2001 01-0923 Hugo Estrada; Gidel & Rocal City of Palo Alto Conversion of storage room at southwest side of building into classroom; Some demolition of non-bearing interior walls, electrical work, and removal of kiln hood in ceramic kiln room 6/13/2002 02-1567 Lehrman Cameron Studio Renovation of bat habitat: new CMU wall and new wood-frame viewing area 10/26/2009 09-2342 Devcon Friends of Palo Alto Junior Museum Partial demolition of CMU wall at aviary to build new bobcat enclosure, relocate aviary, relocate coastal stream display 10/26/2009 09-2343 Devcon Friends of Palo Alto Junior Museum Construction of new bobcat enclosure at southeast side of zoo The Palo Alto Junior Museum building was originally designed and constructed in 1941 by architect Dole Ford Thompson and builders Aro & Okerman. No original building permit was available. The design was a symmetrical arrangement of two one-story wings extending north and south from a two-story tower (Figures 40-42). The central tower contained a foyer, offices, and storage, while the north wing held a workroom and the south wing contained the museum and exhibits. Each wing contained four sliding windows on the northwest façade. The ground floor entrance was recessed Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 24 Page & Turnbull, Inc. below the second story of the tower, with large wood posts at the entrance and a fully glazed double wood with no sidelights. Two windows flanked the entrance.31 A new science building (the current southeast volume) was completed in 1943 as a separate gable- roofed, wood-frame volume southeast of the main building. The buildings were connected by a patio for outdoor activities. In 1944, a glass-enclosed nature studio was constructed between the northwest and southeast volumes, creating a U-shaped floorplan (Figure 43). In 1955, two rooms were added to the southeast volume.32 In 1956, an addition by architect Harold Ahnfeldt extended the south wing of the main building towards Middlefield Road. Today, the south wing of the primary façade has been extended by approximately twice its original length. Throughout the 1950s several other changes occurred to reconfigure the connection of the different volumes and enclose the courtyard (Figure 44).33 Between 1968 and 1969, the museum underwent a comprehensive remodeling and expansion. Classroom and workspaces, including a kiln room, were remodeled. Roof repairs were also completed. The outdoor zoo was added as part of the institution’s expansion. The zoo has remained largely unchanged except for the material and shape of the some of the enclosures. The expansion was completed by architect Kal H. Porter and GMI Construction. In July 1968, the cast iron weather vane with a flying eagle, which had been donated by a community member at the time of the building’s opening, was stolen. The new building formally opened on February 1, 1969. Based on physical observation of the property, several alterations occurred at unknown dates. The four windows at the north wing of the primary façade were replaced with a band of three slider windows. The four windows at the original south wing of the façade were replaced with an eight-bay assembly of almost full-height windows and a door. The original recessed entrance at the primary façade was removed and the ground level wall brought forward to be even with the façade planes of the one-story wings. Based on historic photographs, these changes occurred prior to 1980 and were likely part of the 1968-69 renovation (Figure 45). A wood trellis was added at the northeast entrance to the zoo and the L-shaped patio was designed in the spring of 1989 by Page Sanders and the California Landscape Contractors Association. Minor improvements to the interior and site have recently occurred, such as interior partition reconfigurations, new enclosures in the zoo, and electrical and mechanical work. 31 Description of the original building is based upon contemporary newspaper reports and historic photographs; “Junior Museum building will open in October,” Palo Alto Times, 1941, 8A. 32 “Junior Museum addition favored,” Palo Alto Times, February 14, 1955; Page & Turnbull, Historical Assessment of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, April 7, 2004. 33 Page & Turnbull, 2004. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 25 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 40. Illustration of the new Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building in 1941, published in the Palo Alto Times. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 41. A series of construction photos for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 26 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 42. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building in 1948. Source: Peninsula Life magazine, 1948 via Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 43. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1949. Source: San Francisco Public Library Digital Sanborn Collection. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 27 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 44. Sketch of building floorplan from undated county assessment form, likely circa late 1950s, prior to the enclosure of the central courtyard. Source: City of Palo Alto Community Development Center. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 28 Page & Turnbull, Inc. OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS The subject building was constructed for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo and has been continually occupied since 1941. The City of Palo Alto assumed ownership of the building in 1943 from an association of volunteers. The museum is currently owned by the City of Palo Alto and managed by the non-profit organization, Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. ORIGINAL ARCHITECT & BUILDER The original Palo Alto Junior Museum building was designed by Dole Ford Thompson and constructed by Aro & Okerman. Thompson received his architecture degree from the University of Michigan in 1927. He is known to have designed at least eleven buildings in Palo Alto, where he was based. Most of his projects appear to be residences, but he also designed several small facilities buildings at Stanford University.34 Research did not uncovered further examples of his work. Contractors Aro & Okerman also worked primarily in Palo Alto constructing residences and additions, as well as several fire stations in the 1930s through 1950s.35 34 Page & Turnbull, Historical Assessment, 2004, 4; “New Janitor’s Quarters Are Nearing Completion,” The Stanford Daily, August 15, 1935, 3. 35 “Architects & Builders,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, accessed February 26, 2016. http://www.pastheritage.org/ArchBuild.html; Amy French, “Historic Resources Board Staff Report: 2330 Figure 45. Primary façade of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building in 1980. The recessed entrance has been filled in and the full-height windows have replaced the band of four sliding windows at center. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 29 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Kal H. Porter, the architect of the 1968-69 renovation, was a San Jose-based architect who primarily designed school facilities. He worked throughout Santa Clara County, including the New Inverness School in Cupertino, which feature all moveable walls, and schools for the Jefferson School District in Daly City. He founded the firm Porter, Jensen, Hansen, Manzagol Architects (now PJHM Architects) and Kal Porter, AIA and Associates, which became PSWC Group.36 Bryant,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 26, 2016, http://www.conlon.org/Schwartz- Conlon/remodeling/planning/historic_merit/HRB_staff_report.PDF. 36 Past Consultants, San Jose Modernism Historic Context Statement, June 2009, 142. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 30 Page & Turnbull, Inc. V. EVALUATION NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES & CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, resources over fifty years of age are eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any one of the four criteria of significance and if they sufficiently retain historic integrity. However, resources under fifty years of age can be determined eligible if it can be demonstrated that they are of “exceptional importance,” or if they are contributors to a potential historic district. National Register criteria are defined in depth in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. There are four basic criteria under which a structure, site, building, district, or object can be considered eligible for listing in the National Register. Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The California Register of Historical Resources follows nearly identical guidelines to those used by the National Register, but identifies the Criteria for Evaluation numerically. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria. Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 31 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The following section examines the eligibility of the property at 1451 Middlefield Road, containing the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, for listing in the National Register and California Register. Criterion A / 1 (Events) The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road appears to be individually significant under California Register Criterion 1 as a resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of local or regional history. The institution of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo is associated with the early development of children’s museums in the western United States. Founded in 1934, the Palo Alto Junior Museum appears to be the first children’s museum in the western United States. The museum’s founder Josephine O’Hara was directly inspired by the pioneering institutions in Brooklyn and Boston, and brought those ideas to Palo Alto. However, the building at 1451 Middlefield Road was not constructed at this time and was not part of the museum’s original founding. The Palo Alto Junior Museum had several homes during the period 1934-1941, in keeping with the larger pattern of the early children’s museums. Typically, museums were housed in empty historic homes or temporary locations, moving and expanding to accommodate institutional growth. Only in the 1960s and 1970s did most institutions begin to construct their own facilities. The building at 1451 Middlefield Road was noted in contemporary newspapers as being the first building in the West to be constructed to serve as a children’s museum, made possible by a generous local foundation. The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo has become culturally valuable in Palo Alto as an established institution with a clear mission and widespread community support. The significance of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo institution lies in its association within the ideological development of children’s museums, which was physically represented by the relatively early construction of the building at 1451 Middlefield Road in 1941. Thus, the period of significance under Criterion 1 is 1941. The building does not appear to rise to a level of significance for association with broad patterns of national history as to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A. Criterion B / 2 (Persons) The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to have been associated with persons important to the history of Palo Alto or the State of California to the extent that the property would be considered individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under Criterion B/2 (Persons). The founder of the museum, Josephine O’Hara, is a notable figure in the history of the institution and as an early proponent of the values proposed by children’s museums. However, she does not appear to have participated further in the nation-wide or statewide museum movement, and therefore does not rise to an individual level of significance such that the building would be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under Criterion B/2. Criterion C / 3 (Architecture/Design) The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to be individually significant under Criterion C/3 (Architecture/Design). The original architect Dole Ford Thompson Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 32 Page & Turnbull, Inc. and the builders Aro & Okerman were active in Palo Alto but are not prolific or sufficiently known enough to determine that the subject building is the work of a master. The building is designed in a vernacular Ranch style. Although the simplicity of the design complements its use and its setting within the park, it does not possess high artistic value, nor is it a distinctive representation of a style. For these reasons, 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under Criterion C/3. Criterion D / 4 (Information Potential) The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road was not evaluated for significance under Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). Criterion D/4 generally applies to the potential for archaeological information to be uncovered at the site, which is beyond the scope of this report. INTEGRITY In order to qualify for listing in the National Register or the California Register, a property must possess significance under one of the aforementioned criteria and have historic integrity. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity by the survival of certain characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”37 The process of determining integrity is similar for both the National Register and the California Register. The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association—are used to evaluate a resource’s eligibility for listing in the National Register and the California Register. According to the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, these seven characteristics are defined as follows: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure, and style of the property. Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road remains in the same location in which it was construction, so the building retains integrity of location. The use of the building has 37 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September 2001), p. 11; National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997), p. 44. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 33 Page & Turnbull, Inc. not changed and the institution that it houses remains as important today as when it was founded. Therefore, the building retains integrity of association and feeling. Rinconada Park and the surrounding environment have changed little, but the nearby public school, the large surface parking lot, and the addition of the outdoor zoo encroach upon the original setting of the building. For this reason, the building does not retain integrity of setting. The Palo Alto Junior Museum building has undergone extensive changes during its history. The original building comprised the two-story tower and two symmetrical one-story wings. Successive additions have occurred to the site, including the construction of a new wing to the southeast, connecting hyphens built between the two volumes, and new volumes constructed in the northeast portion of the building. The enclosure of the courtyard at center has obscured the sense of the building’s original scale and linear volumes. The original southern wing has been extended to almost twice the original length, interrupting the symmetry of the original design. The recessed entryway has been replaced, as have the windows at the primary façade. The cumulative impact of these changes has compromised the building’s integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. For these reasons, the building does not retain historic integrity. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo at 1451 Middlefield Road was found significant under California Register Criterion 1 for its association with the ideological development of children’s museums, which was physically represented by the relatively early construction of the building at 1451 Middlefield Road in 1941. However, the building has sustained a number of alterations and additions which obscure its original appearance and compromise its integrity. As both significance and integrity are required for eligibility for listing in the California Register., the alterations render the building ineligible. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 34 Page & Turnbull, Inc. VII. CONCLUSION The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building was originally constructed in 1941 by local architect Dole Ford Thompson. The building housed the Children’s Museum (now the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo), an institution founded in 1934 to provide education and entertainment for youth in Palo Alto. As an early part of the children’s museum movement, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo embraced tenants established by the first children’s museum on the East Coast and was the first institution of its kind west of the Mississippi River. In order to appeal to young patrons who objected to being called “children,” the museum’s name was officially changed to the Palo Alto Junior Museum. It has become an important civic and cultural institution for the Palo Alto community. The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo at 1451 Middlefield Road was found significant under California Register Criterion 1 for its association with the ideological development of children’s museums, which was physically represented by the relatively early construction of the building at 1451 Middlefield Road in 1941. However, the building has sustained a number of alterations and additions which obscure its original appearance and compromise its integrity. As both significance and integrity are required for eligibility for listing in the California Register., the alterations render the building ineligible. For these reasons, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not qualify as a historic resource for the purposes of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 35 Page & Turnbull, Inc. VIII. REFERENCES CITED PUBLISHED WORKS Alexander, Edward Porter and Mary Alexander. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Fundamentals of Museums. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008. Alexander, Edward Porter. The Museum in America: Innovators and Pioneers. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 1997. California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistant Series No. 7, How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historic Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September 2001. Ferguson, Gary. Nature’s Keeper: John Ripley Forbes and the Children’s Nature Movement. Helena, MT: Sweetgrass Books, 2012. Onion, Rebecca Stiles. “Picturing Nature and Childhood at the American Museum of Natural History and the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, 1899-1930,” Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 4.3 (2001), 450-451. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997. Page & Turnbull, Historical Assessment of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, April 7, 2004. Past Consultants, San Jose Modernism Historic Context Statement, June 2009, 142. Winslow Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993. PUBLIC RECORDS City of Palo Alto Development Center “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. Corbett, Michael and Denise Bradley. “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Palo Alto, Calif., 1945. Palo Alto Historical Association NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS Hammond, Gene. “Children’s Museum: First in the United States.” Peninsula Life, August 1948. “Mr. Appleseed.” Time, December 21, 1953, 65-66. “New Janitor’s Quarters Are Nearing Completion,” The Stanford Daily, August 15, 1935, 3. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 36 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Palo Alto Times, clippings referencing the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo available at the Palo Alto Historical Association. INTERNET SOURCES “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed 12/22/14, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the- historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA “About the Junior Museum and Zoo,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 20, 2016. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/jmz/ Association of Children’s Museums online database, accessed February 29, 2016. http://www.childrensmuseums.org/childrens-museums/find-a-childrens-museum/ “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health. Website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. Herminia Weihsin Din, “An Investigation of Children’s Museums in the United States – Their Past, Present, and Future: A Proposed Study,” Marilyn Zurmuehlin Working Papers in Art Education 15 (1999). Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University, http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.h tml Fox, Margalit. “John Ripley Forbes, 93, Who Planted Many Nature Museums, is Dead.” New York Times, September 5, 2006, accessed February 24, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/obituaries/05forbes.html Amy French, “Historic Resources Board Staff Report: 2330 Bryant,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 26, 2016, http://www.conlon.org/Schwartz- Conlon/remodeling/planning/historic_merit/HRB_staff_report.PDF Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, “The JMZ Initiative,” 5. http://www.friendsjmz.org/capital_campaign/jmz_initiative.html “History,” Boston Children’s Museum, accessed February 29, 2016, http://www.bostonchildrensmuseum.org/about/history. “History of Stanford,” Stanford University, website accessed 12/22/14, http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/ Matt Bowling. “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com. Website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the- beginning-of-mayfields-end.php O’Donnell, Shannon. “Junior Grows Up: The Development of the Tallahassee Museum, 1957- 1992.” Masters thesis, Florida State University, 2009. Lib-ir@fsu.edu. Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 37 Page & Turnbull, Inc. “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed 22 December 1014 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12 “Prominent Architects and Builders,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Website accessed 26 February 2016 from: http://www.pastheritage.org/ArchBuild.html “Timeline,” Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, accessed February 29, 2016, http://thehistory.childrensmuseum.org/timeline 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax 2401 C Street, Suite B Sacramento, California 95816 916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California 90013 213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH BUILDING TECHNOLOGY www.page-turnbull.com Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park Palo Alto CA Prepared for: David J. Powers & Associates 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose CA 95126 Prepared by: HortScience, Inc. 325 Ray Street Pleasanton CA 94566 June 2015 Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park Palo Alto CA Table of Contents Page Introduction and Overview 1 Assessment Methods 1 Description of Trees 1 Suitability for Preservation 4 Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendation for Action 5 Tree Preservation Guidelines 6 List of Tables Table 1. Tree condition & frequency of occurrence. 2 Table 2. Suitability for preservation. 5 Table 3. Proposed action. 7 Attachments Tree Assessment Map Tree Assessment Form Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 1 Introduction and Overview The City of Palo Alto is planning to implement a Long-Range Plan for Rinconada Park. David J. Powers is preparing environmental documents for the project and requested that HortScience, Inc. prepare an Arborist Inventory of trees identified for removal. This report provides the following information: 1. A field review of trees recommended for removal. 2. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction and maintenance phases of development. Assessment Methods The tree assessment focused on trees identified in the Long-Range Plan – Tree Removal exhibit prepared by Verde Design (December 2012). For each tree on the plan, the following steps were undertaken: 1. Locate the tree to be removed on the Verde plan. 2. Verify the species. 3. Measure the trunk diameter (54" above grade). 4. Determine if the tree met the City of Palo Alto’s criteria for protected status. 5. Evaluate the health using a 0 to 5 scale where 0 = dead, 1 = poor and 5 = excellent condition. 6. Note any significant structural characteristics including decay, poor crown conformation, dieback and a history of failure. 7. If not previously assessed, locate the tree’s trunk on the Verde Design plan. With one exception, Blue Atlas cedar #358, only trees to be removed were evaluated. Description of Trees Thirty-eight (38) trees had been identified for removal (Table 1 following page). I added Blue Atlas cedar #358 to this group. Two species (coast redwood and coast live oak) are native to the Palo Alto area. Trees of these two species appear to have been planted as part of landscape development. Trees to be removed as part of the Long Range Plan were not evenly distributed across Rinconada Park but were concentrated in a few areas: Coast redwoods along Newell Road. Twelve (12) redwoods have been topped to provide clearance to the overhead electrical lines (Photo 1). Trees are located just inside the sidewalk. Trunk diameters ranged between 21” and 29”. Tree condition was fair. Photo 1. Looking across Newell Road at coast redwoods #79 – 90. Note presence of overhead wires. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 2 Table 1. Species present and tree condition. Trees to be removed. Long Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Palo Alto CA. Common name Scientific name Condition No. of Trees Dead Poor Fair Good Excell. Protected Total Red horsechestnut Aesculus carnea -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Ruby horsechestnut Aesculus carnea 'Briotii' -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Blue Atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' 1 -- -- -- -- -- 1 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Patmore ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Patmore' -- -- 1 2 2 -- 5 Ash Fraxinus sp. -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 Wilson holly Ilex x altaclarensis 'Wilsonii' -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum -- 1 -- -- -- -- 1 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandifolia -- -- 1 1 -- -- 2 Crabapple Malus sp. -- 1 -- -- -- -- 1 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Tobira Pittosporum tobira -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 London plane Platanus x hispanica -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 Cherry Prunus sp. -- 1 1 1 -- 3 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia -- -- -- 1 -- 1 1 Southern live oak Quercus virginiana -- -- 2 1 -- -- 3 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens -- -- 12 -- 1 12 13 Tristania Tristaniopsis laurina -- -- -- -- 1 -- 1 Total, all trees assessed 1 3 20 11 4 13 39 Swim Center. Cherries #182 and 184 were located in front of this facility. Trees were young. Cherry #182 was in good condition needs pruning while #182 was in poor condition. Tennis courts area. Thirteen (13) trees were located to the west and southwest of the tennis courts. London plane #223 was in a play area. It was 21” and fair. Associated with new path alignments were Patmore ash #349 – 352, 356, southern live oak #353 – 355, green ash #268, crabapple #265, cherry #357, and ash #362. These were young and semi-mature trees with trunk diameters between 3” and 8”. Condition was a mix of fair and good. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 3 Hopkins Avenue entry. Nine (9) trees were located near the park entry off Hopkins Avenue. Included in this group were Aleppo pine #280, Wilson holly #281, glossy privet #282, ruby horsechestnut #283, coast live oak #284, coast redwood #285, tobira #286, red horsechestnut #289 and tristania #332. Trunk diameters ranged from 5” (Wilson holly) to 31” (Aleppo pine). Tree condition varied from fair to good. Coast redwood #285 and tristania #332 were in excellent condition (Photo 2). Photo 2. Coast redwood #285 was 11” in diameter and had excellent form and structure. Middlefield Road Southern magnolia #337 and 338 were located in a 4½’ wide planting strip between the sidewalk and curb. Tree #337 was 19” in diameter and in good condition; #338 was 14” and fair. Blue Atlas cedar #358 Located near the Swim Center, this mature tree had three trunks (25, 13, 12”) and was dead (Photo 3). Photo 3. Looking west at dead Blue Atlas cedar #358. Swim Center is out of the photo on the right. The red building is a restroom facility. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (8.10.020) defines regulated trees in three categories: Category 1 – Protected trees Protected trees are, “any tree of the species Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade; and any redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade.” Coast live oak #284 and coast redwoods #79- 90 meet these criteria. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 4 Category 2 – Street trees Street trees are all trees growing within street right-of-way. A permit from the Public Works Department is required prior to any work on or within the dripline of any tree growing within the street right-of-way (publically owned). Coast redwoods #79 – 90 may meet this criterion. Southern magnolias #337 and 338 meet this criterion. Category 3 – Designated trees Designated trees are trees associated with development project that are specifically designated by City to be saved and protected. Designated trees have yet to be identified for this project. Results for individual trees are located in the Tree Assessment Form (see Attachments). Tree locations are noted by tree tag number in the Tree Assessment Map. Suitability for Preservation Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors: Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. For example, coast redwood and coast live oak are relatively tolerant of construction impacts while Aleppo pine and southern magnolia are more sensitive. Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. Species invasiveness Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf) lists species identified as having the potential to be invasive. Palo Alto is part of the Central West Floristic Province. None of the species present has been identified as having invasive potential. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 5 Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2). Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Palo Alto CA. High Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Six (6) trees were rated as having high suitability for preservation: Patmore ash #349, 350; cherry #357, coast redwood #285, green ash #268, and tristania #332. Moderate Trees in fair health and/or possessing structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category. Twelve (12) trees were rated as having moderate suitability: Patmore ash #351, 352, 356; southern live oak #354, 355; Aleppo pine #280, coast live oak #284, London plane #223, red horsechestnut #289, ruby horsechestnut #283, southern magnolia #337, and Wilson holly #281. Low Trees in poor health or possessing significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Twenty (20) trees were rated as having low suitability for preservation: coast redwoods #79 - 90, cherry #182, 184; crabapple #265, glossy privet #282, tobira #286, southern magnolia #338, southern live oak #353 and ash #362. Note: table does not include Blue Atlas cedar #358 which was dead. We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. Evaluation of Impacts from the Long-Range Plan The Long-Range Plan for Rinconada Park involves re-design of numerous features, most notably parking and paths. Trees were identified for removal based on anticipated impacts from construction as well as their location within areas proposed for re-design. A typical construction project tries to balance the location and intensity of adverse impacts from development activity against the quality and health of trees. The tree assessment was the reference points for tree condition and quality. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 6 Impacts to trees could occur in a variety of ways. First, demolition of existing structures may directly damage tree roots and crowns. Second, grading and other construction activities may also damage trees, through both direct mechanical injury and indirectly by altering drainage. Re-design may result in changes in irrigation regime that can either benefit or hurt tree growth and development. The 39 trees identified for removal were diverse, encompassing a wide range of species, size, maturity and condition. Thirteen trees (12 coast redwood and 1 coast live oak) met the City of Palo Alto’s criteria for Protected status. Based on my assessment, I recommend the following: 1. Add Blue Atlas cedar #358 to the list of trees to be removed. Alternatively, remove the tree as soon as possible. 2. Consider relocating coast redwood #285 rather than removing it. The tree is small enough to successfully survive relocation. It is in excellent condition. Tree Preservation Guidelines A large number of trees located in Rinconada Park will be retained as the Long-Range Plan is implemented. The keys to successful tree preservation in this setting are: 1) irrigation during construction and 2) maintenance of the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The following are recommendations for design and construction phases that will assist in successful tree preservation. Design recommendations 1. Verify the location and tag numbers of the all trees proposed for preservation. Include trunk locations and tag numbers on all plans. 2. Allow the Consulting Arborist to review all future project submittals including grading, utility, drainage, irrigation, and landscape plans. 3. Prepare a site work plan which identifies access and haul routes, construction trailer and storage areas, etc. 4. Establish a TREE PROTECTION ZONE around each tree to be preserved. For design purposes, the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be the curb or dripline. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within that zone. 5. Install protection around all trees to be preserved. 6. No entry is permitted into a TREE PROTECTION ZONE without permission of the project superintendent. 7. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury. 8. Use only herbicides safe for use around trees and labeled for that use, even below pavement. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 7 9. Design irrigation systems so that no trenching will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Pre-construction and demolition treatments and recommendations 1. The demolition contractor shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection. 2. Trees to be preserved will require pruning to clean the crown and to provide clearance. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the latest editions of the American National Standards for tree work (Z133 and A300). Of particular concern are heavy lateral branches on coast live oak #335 and pecan #330. 3. Trees to be preserved will require irrigation during the construction period. Tree protection during construction 1. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. 2. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist. 3. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 4. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times. 5. No materials, equipment, spoil, waste or wash-out water may be deposited, stored, or parked within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE (fenced area). 6. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel. 7. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist. Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a depth of 30”. 8. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw. HortScience, Inc. James R. Clark, Ph.D. Certified Arborist WE-0846 Registered Consulting Arborist #357 Attachments Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Map Tree Survey TREE LOCATION SPECIES TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENT No. DIAMETER TREE?1=poor for (in.)5=excell.PRESERVATION 253 Zoo, exterior Coast redwood 13 No 5 High Excellent form & structure; inside play area. 255 Zoo, exterior Red horsechestnut 23 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 6'; heavy lateral branches to E. 260 Zoo, exterior Callery pear 10 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; multiple attachments @ 5'; separating @ top of tree. 261 Zoo, exterior Callery pear 9 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; multiple attachments @ 12'; narrow form. 262 Zoo, exterior Callery pear 12 No 3 Moderate Typical form & structure; multiple attachments @ 9'; separated; fireblight. 263 Zoo, exterior Callery pear 9 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; codominant trunks @ 5'; multiple attachments @7'. 307 Middlefield Southern magnolia 15 No 3 Low Street tree; 4½' planting strip; no basal flare; new sidewalk; okay form but very thin canopy; lacks vigor. 308 Middlefield Southern magnolia 21 No 4 Moderate Street tree; 4½' planting strip; 2' long trunk wound on SW.; multiple attachments @ 7'. 309 Middlefield Southern magnolia 27 No 3 Low Street tree; 4½' planting strip; codominant trunks @ 7' & 10'; crown lifted; thin canopy with twig dieback. 310 Middlefield Southern magnolia 17 No 3 Low Street tree; 4½' planting strip; multiple attachments @ 8'; suppressed by #311; thin canopy. 311 Zoo, exterior Coast live oak 29 Yes 4 High Measured @ 2½'; codominant trunks @ 4'; narrow attachment; stems vertical; nice dense canopy; developing heavy lateral branches to S. Tree Assessment Junior Museum & Zoo project area City of Palo Alto Palo Alto CA June 2015 Page1 Tree Survey TREE LOCATION SPECIES TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENT No. DIAMETER TREE?1=poor for (in.)5=excell.PRESERVATION Tree Assessment Junior Museum & Zoo project area City of Palo Alto Palo Alto CA June 2015 312 Zoo, exterior Hollywood juniper 18 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; leans S. 313 Zoo, exterior Blue Atlas cedar 34,14 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5'; more low-branched than codominant; 34" stem vertical & good; 14" stem sweeps upright to W. but stubbed off. 314 Zoo, exterior Blue Atlas cedar 51 No 4 Moderate Huge tree; 3 very large low laterals sweep upright with good taper. 315 Zoo, exterior Ruby horsechestnut 3,3,3 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 1' & 3' below canopy of #314; rangy. 316 Zoo, exterior Yew 7,7 No 3 Low Codominant trunks @ 1'; upright; lifted to 10'; poor color. 317 Zoo, exterior Blue Atlas cedar 37,32 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 2'; 37" vertical & codominant again @ 12'; 32" really a large branch that sweeps vertical; also codominant again @ 12'. 318 Zoo, interior Norfolk Island pine 9 No 5 High Tag on hawk enclosure; good young tree. 319 Zoo, interior African sumac 4 No 3 Moderate Nice dense canopy; lost central leader. 320 Zoo, interior Monterey pine 14 No 4 Moderate No tag; inside tortoise enclosure; crook @ 8'; codominant trunks high in crown; nice canopy. 321 Zoo, interior Glossy privet 4,3 No 3 Low Codominant trunks @ 4'; thin canopy. 322 Zoo, interior Mayten 8 No 3 Low Leans N.; minor correction; codominant trunks @ 5'. 323 Zoo, interior Mayten 5,5 No 3 Low Codominant trunks @ 4' with wide attachment; small canopy. 324 Zoo, interior Mayten 7 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; multiple attachments @ 4. 325 Zoo, interior London plane 6 No 3 Low No tag; inside enclosure; topped @ 6'. Page2 Tree Survey TREE LOCATION SPECIES TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENT No. DIAMETER TREE?1=poor for (in.)5=excell.PRESERVATION Tree Assessment Junior Museum & Zoo project area City of Palo Alto Palo Alto CA June 2015 326 Zoo, interior Victorian box 10,8 No 3 Low Corrected lean N.; codominant trunks @ 4'; thin canopy; no vigor. 327 Zoo, exterior Dawn redwood 32 No 5 High Good form & structure; surface roots; lost central leader @ top of tree. 328 Zoo, exterior Ginkgo 16 No 5 High Good form & structure; developing heavy lateral branches to N. 329 Zoo, interior Norfolk Island pine 5 No 5 High Tag on fence; near #320; tree inside eagle enclosure; good form & structure. 330 Zoo, exterior Pecan 41 No 3 Low Wide but irregular vase-shaped crown; heavy lateral branch to N.; multiple attachments @ 16'. 331 Zoo, interior Ginkgo 7 No 5 High Tag on fence; good young tree. 333 Zoo, exterior Coast redwood 27 Yes 5 High Good form & structure; thin canopy. 334 Zoo, exterior European hackberry 10,9,8,6 No 3 Low Multiple attachments @ base with included bark; dead branches to 4"; crowded by #333 & 335. 335 Zoo, exterior Coast live oak 34 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5' & above; dense canopy; 1 stem vertical; 2nd stem leans horizontal to the W.; needs reduction. 336 Zoo, interior Hollywood juniper 10 No 4 Moderate Tag on fence; near #333; typical form & structure. 339 Zoo, exterior Red horsechestnut 14 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 10'; narrow & upright form. 340 Zoo, exterior Ruby horsechestnut 10,9,8 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 3' & 5'; numerous basal & trunk cankers; 10" & 8" stems vertical; 9" stem leans S. Page3 Tree Survey TREE LOCATION SPECIES TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENT No. DIAMETER TREE?1=poor for (in.)5=excell.PRESERVATION Tree Assessment Junior Museum & Zoo project area City of Palo Alto Palo Alto CA June 2015 341 Zoo, exterior Ruby horsechestnut 8,8,7 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 1' & 3'; attachments @ 3' has included bark; stems vertical; numerous trunk wounds. 342 Zoo, exterior Lawson's cypress 14 No 5 High Good form & structure. 343 Zoo, exterior Calif. bay 19 No 3 Low Good form but thin canopy with extensive twig dieback; very large base. 344 Zoo, exterior Red horsechestnut 17,9,7 No 3 Low Basal cavity on N.; multiple attachments @ 4' with adj. trunk wound; 17" stem vertical; 9" & 7" are low branches that lean horizontal to NE. & SW.; nice canopy. 345 Zoo, exterior Deodar cedar 30 No 3 Low No basal flare; typical form & structure; one- sided to S.; thin canopy. 346 Zoo, exterior Deodar cedar 22 No 4 Moderate One-sided to W.; narrow & upright form. 347 Zoo, exterior Deodar cedar 26 No 3 Low One-sided to N.; lost central leader @ top of tree; thin upper canopy. 348 Zoo, exterior Catalpa 5 No 4 Moderate Good young tree; multiple attachments @ 5'. 359 Zoo, exterior Red horsechestnut 22 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 5'; cavities @ old pruning wounds. 360 Zoo, exterior Crabapple 5 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure. 361 Zoo, exterior Crabapple 7 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure. 362 Zoo, exterior Ash 3,3 No 3 Low Poor form & structure; codominant trunks @ base. Page4 Tree Assessment Map Rinconada Park Palo Alto, CA Prepared for: David J. Powers & Associates San Jose, CA June 2015 No Scale Notes Base map provided by: Verde Design Santa Clara, CA Numbered tree locations are approximate. 325 Ray Street Pleasanton, California 94566 Phone 925.484.0211 Fax 925.484.0596 280 281 282 332 283 284 285 286 289 337 338 362 265 268 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 184 182 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Tree Assessment Map Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Palo Alto, CA Prepared for: David J. Powers & Associates San Jose, CA June 2015 No Scale Notes Base map provided by: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects Palo Alto, CA Numbered tree locations are approximate. 325 Ray Street Pleasanton, California 94566 Phone 925.484.0211 Fax 925.484.0596 362 253 255 260 261 262 263 X X 326 309 310 311 308 307 312 313 314 315 316 317 327 328 318 319 329 330 331 320 321 322 323 324 325 360 361 359 336 333 334 335 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “1451 Middlefield” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Revised Plans” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7577) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 799 Embarcadero Road: Fire Station #3 Replacement Project Second ARB Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 799 Embarcadero Road (file PLN16-00123): Applicant's Request for Architectural Review Approval of a Two-Story, 6,663 Square Foot Replacement Fire Station Building Located on the Northwest Corner of Embarcadero and Newell Roads Adjacent to the Southeasterly Edge of Rinconada Park on an 18.27 Acre Property. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures). Zoning District: Public Facility (PF) From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on Architectural Review approval findings and subject to conditions of approval (Attachments A and B, respectively). Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on December 1, 2016, and continued to a date certain, January 19, 2017. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54890. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available as Attachment G. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the ARB and convey the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report as modified to reflect recent project changes. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The City Council adopted new Architectural Review approval findings that became effective in January 2017; these are provided as Attachment A for the ARB’s consideration. The findings support the project. Background On December 1, 2016, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the ARB meeting is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juwv3s3KXPw&start=8&width=420&height=315. The ARB comments at the hearing and the applicant’s responses are summarized below and on the following page. The applicant also provided a response letter (Attachment F). The applicant considered the ARB’s comments and made three significant changes to the plans: (1) Adjusted the park-facing elevation (shown in below image) similar to the approach used on the Newell-facing elevation; a dormitory window is extended upward through the roof plane to break up the mass. (2) Provided two alternatives to the concrete wall formerly proposed around the parking lot, to provide greater transparency and supplemental vegetation. The above image shows a concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall option, with recurring slots or openings; landscaping additions for both options, and additional images for this CMU wall option will be provided in hardcopy plans to show the wall’s running-bond pattern and detail for the openings. The below image shows the second option, to extend the see-through metal fence around the north and west sides of the parking lot; however, this option provides less privacy for the firefighters. (3) Proposed a zinc panel, Rheinzink, exterior material with a 20-year warrante and with a 200- year life expectancy. The zinc panels (shown excerpted in below left image with the proposed CMU wall) would have a narrower vertical pattern than the previously proposed Alucobond panels, which also have a 20-year warranty. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 January 5, 2017 Proposal October 11, 2016 Materials A summary of ARB comments on December 1, 2016, and the applicant’s responses thereto and related images are provided in the table on the following page. ARB Comments/Direction on December 1 Applicant Response Consider placing generator at back corner. October 11, 2016 Site Plan The generator is in the same location. The potential wireless site shifted westward away from parking space #4. January 5, 2017 Site Plan Widen the paved corner near crosswalk to be more generous on the Newell side. Because of guy wires and anchors, the paved corner cannot be extended toward Newell, but it has been expanded. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 October 11, 2016 Site Plan January 5, 2017 Site Plan Nearby pool building is warmer with wood trellis; substation’s wood screen fence is more open; consider making parking lot wall more open and enhancing the park-side planting. Change #2 as noted above replaces the solid-concrete parking lot wall with more open wall options and additional plantings Consider not having two-story gray metal panel wall next to park - metal may not be durable/the right solution – make the view from the park more pleasant. Due to the site constraints/programmatic needs and requests, floor plan is unchanged. Changes #1 and #3 noted above are proposed to address this. Consider more texture (eg De Young Museum) Changes #1 and #3 introduce more texture. Darker metal is better than lighter metal; consider making siding more residential- looking but still using a modern material Change #3 as noted introduces vertical siding look using a Zinc material Consider using more wood at entry to make more warm/inviting No additional wood at entry is shown in revised plans Consider using a sloped roof Architect determined flat roof is best for solar PV array; with sloped roof, building would be taller near park due to PV array and program’s height requirements. Consider gate materials go around parking lot Change #2 option addresses this comment Consider placing fountain near corner Architect stated on 12/1, ‘Will look at fountain’, but it remains in the same spot. Shadow concern from new building Clarified on 12/1: ‘Shadow is not from building; it’s from wall’ Analysis1 The draft, incomplete plans received January 5, 2017 capture the three changes noted in the above report section. The hard copy plans, to be submitted January 12, 2017, may provide additional detail regarding landscaping, at a minimum. The changes to the parking lot perimeter wall, west-facing elevation and landscaping, and metal siding (reflect a more residentially-oriented application pattern or texture) appear to address the ARB’s comments to the extent feasible, given the program and site constraints. Attachment C provides a narrative of how the project meets the relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Key Issues: The only key issues remaining with this project, based upon the December 1, 2016 discussion, may be as follows: A. a flat roof is still proposed, contrary to some HRB and ARB members’ preferences, B. no additional wood detailing is proposed at the entry facing Newell Road, and C. despite the permeable element of the revised parking lot wall, and additional landscaping, the interface of the fire station site with the park edge may not be as “pleasant” as some ARB members prefer (i.e. the revised plans do not include the prior suggestion of placing a mural along the wall facing the park, because the proposed public art is a mechanical piece for plaza). Staff suggests that these issues could be resolved (or considered resolved) if the ARB were to: A. note that, with the proposed installation of solar photovoltaic panels will provide a visible sloped element to serve as a reference to sloped roof, residentially-oriented, civic architecture, B. add an approval condition to require a return to the subcommittee or staff review of additional wood entry details, and C. add an approval condition to require further modifications to the park-facing parking lot wall (e.g. variable heights, additional permeability, color, materials) and/or additional or different plant materials within the park near the wall. Bird-Friendly Design: The architect has noted that a new plan sheet (A-603) will describe the glass selection to ensure the project reflects ‘bird-friendly design’. The glass selected is ArnoldGlas ISolar Ornilux insulated glazing; this glass has a UV-reflective film on it. The sample board to be presented to the ARB will include a sample of this product. Approval Findings: Staff has prepared draft findings for approval to indicate the project is approvable in accordance with these findings. The project’s compliance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan is set forth in the draft findings for approval (Attachment A). If the ARB believes additional, significant modifications are needed to better meet the approval findings, the applicant can be directed to return for a final hearing. If the ARB recommends project approval subject to submittal of additional details for staff or ARB subcommittee review prior to Building Permit submittal, the ARB can add such an approval condition. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, staff determined the project can be considered Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. The Historic Resource Evaluation concluded the existing fire station was not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. The HRE was reviewed by the historic preservation planner and HRB. Circulation and traffic for the replacement station were reviewed by the Transportation Division staff. Staff reviewed other CEQA checklist topic areas and will finalize the document and review findings following the ARB hearing, for the Director’s consideration. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten day in advance. As this project was continued to a date certain by the ARB, no additional mailed noticing was conducted. An open house was held at the Art Center on December 14, 2016. The meeting was attended by Fire Chief, Chief Planning Official, Public Works Engineering team, project architect, and the Senior Program Manager for Arts and Sciences, and one member of the public. As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received following the outreach meeting. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. It is important to note that this project is the first of the significant Council Infrastructure Plans to come before the Architectural Review Board. Construction of the project is scheduled to begin in August 2017. A continuation or denial of the project would lead to a delay in the project schedule. Consistency with Application Findings Staff has prepared draft findings for approval using the Council approved revised AR findings that became effective January 12, 2017. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Six ARB findings (DOC) Attachment B: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment C: Comp Plan Policies and Programs (DOC) Attachment D: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC) Attachment E: 12-01-2016 ARB Minutes Excerpt (DOCX) Attachment F: Applicant's response letter (DOCX) Attachment G: Staff report December 1, 2016 w/o attachments (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) __________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT A DRAFT (SIX) FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL 799 Embarcadero/Fire Station #3 Replacement Building ______________________________________________________________________________ The design and architecture of the proposed project complies with the Six Findings for Architec- tural Review set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 Section 18.76.020 effective as of January 12, 2017. (1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The project complies with the land use and development standards of the PF zone. The project complies with the policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan): o Policy C-62, design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community, o Policy L-48, high quality design and site planning, compatible with surrounding development and public spaces, o Program L-49, maintain and support historic or consistent design character, o Policy L-50, high quality signage (existing sign to be relocated to site’s corner), o Policy L-62, provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art, o Program L-71, recognize Embarcadero Road (and other roads noted) as a scenic route (providing main access to the Baylands and secondary access to Stanford University), o Policy L-70, enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining street trees, o Policy L-72, promote and maintain public art compatible with the character and identity of the neighborhood, o Policy L-74, use the work of artists, landscape architects, etc. in the design and improvement of public spaces, o Program L-73, locate parking lots behind buildings, o Policy L-76, require trees and other landscaping within parking lots, o Program L-75, 50% shade program (zoning ordinance update implemented). (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (2a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community; The project is consistent with Finding 2(a), given: The intersection improvements will improve circulation; ingress from Newell/egress onto Embarcadero are compatible with the design concept and functions. The new facilities and amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles are an improvement from the existing facilities as to safety and convenience. (2b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant; The project is consistent with Finding 2(b), given: Existing protected trees on and off-site will be retained and protected; the natural features (mature trees) are appropriately integrated with the new plantings shown on the plans. The existing building was determined ineligible for listing as a state historic resource and is not being preserved, but several aspects of the new building are designed to respect the historic resources of the area, including the use of terra cotta in reference to the terra cotta courtyard walls at the nearby, historic Rinconada Library. The HRB concurred with the HRE determination the existing station was ineligibility for state registry listing. (2c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district; Finding 2c is not applicable since the PF zone does not impose context based design criteria. (2d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations; The project is consistent with Finding 2(d), given: The project is replacing an existing one-story station with a two-story station contrasting with the primarily one-story and sloped roof character of civic buildings in the immediate vicinity; the materials and architectural forms are intended to be compatible with the mid-century architecture of the area. The addition will not encroach upon the adjacent park (Rinconada Park). The building is intended to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area which includes: o historical buildings on the parcel - distant from the site and obscured by mature vegetation, and nearby buildings eligible for historic register listing, o mature vegetation providing a backdrop for the new two-story building, o one- and two-story, sloped-roof residential homes across Embarcadero. The fire station site, over 1100 feet from the Lucie Stern Center, JMZ and Girl Scout House (Lou Henry Hoover House), is obscured by mature vegetation from views from these civic buildings; the new station would be visible from the Palo Alto Art Center. The project site is zoned Public Facility; the adjacent Rinconada Park is also zoned and designated for public land uses; the project, as conditioned, would not impede future park improvements currently under consideration, nor impact existing uses in the park. (2e) enhances living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas; The project is consistent with Finding 2(e), given: The temporary living facilities for firefighters in the new building would provide much improved living conditions on the site. The proposed building would not adversely impact the nearby residential neighborhoods, located south of Embarcadero Road and North of Hopkins Avenue. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area; the project is consistent with Finding 3, given: The materials were selected for durability and reference to nearby historic resources; the new structure’s materials and construction techniques are appropriate for fire station use; Colors and textures will be compatible with nearby civic buildings and park landscaping. (4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.); the project is consistent with Finding 4, given: The design is a code-compliant fire station providing modern amenities, equipment storage, and places the main pedestrian entry and plaza on Newell Road, the more- oriented route than the busier Embarcadero Road. The open space design includes a pedestrian plaza, a bicycle queuing area, and new landscaping that will serve the passersby and visitors from the neighborhood and surrounding community, as well as a second floor balcony for fire personnel to enjoy park views. (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained; the project is consistent with Finding 5, given: Existing protected trees on and off-site will be retained and protected; the planting plan will meet these findings for suitability and adaptability to the site and installed plant materials would be verified as regional-indigenous-drought-resistant. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning; the project is consistent with Finding #6 given: The project plans indicate the project will follow both the LEED Silver and Calgreen Tier 2 checklists to meet City’s standards and policies for green building. ATTACHMENT B DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 799 Embarcadero Road, Fire Station #3 (File 16PLN-00263) On January 19, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended ________ of the application referenced above, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) _______ the project on __________, 2017. Project Planner: Amy French, Chief Planning Official. GENERAL CONDITION The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated received January 12, 2017, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permits. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 1. Architectural Review Approval: a) The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the AR approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect unless application for extension of this entitlement is submit prior to the one year expiration. b) The following additional conditions shall be satisfied in building permit plans: (1) Bird friendly glass shall be incorporated, employing one or more of the following methods: · Elements that preclude bird collisions without completely obscuring vision like secondary facades, netting, screens, shutters, or exterior shades. · UV Patterned Glass that contain UV-reflective or contrasting patterns that are visible to birds · Patterns on Glass designed in accordance with the 2X4 rule, which restricts horizontal spaces to less than 2" high, or vertical spaces less than 4" wide. · Opaque, etched, stained, frosted, and translucent glass (2) Outside lighting shall be appropriately shielded and minimized. (3) The following items shall be submitted for staff level/ARB subcommittee review to ensure project details listed herein are consistent with the approval findings, prior to the submittal of associated building permits: Placeholder – ARB may have items to return for staff or subcommittee review c) All future signage proposed for this site and any exterior modifications to the building or property shall be subject to Architectural Review prior to installation. d) The stealth cell tower proposal (fake conifer concealing wireless communications facility (WCF) tower) indicated on the site plan shall be subject to separate Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit review process. If a fake conifer WCF is not installed at the indicated location, a shade tree shall be installed to ensure the City’s 50% shade by tree canopy policy/requirement is met. 2. Legal Matters/Fees: a) 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 its actual attorney’s 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. b) This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. c) Government Code Section 66020 provides that 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 October 27, 2016 that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO 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. 3. Noise: All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the allowance specified in Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION 1. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall prepare a construction logistics plan for the work associated with the building permit. Plan shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall address 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, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, and contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Grading and Excavation Permit. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT OR EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 2. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. Also plot and label the tree protection zone. 3. GRADING PERMIT: The grading and drainage plan must include an earthworks table with the estimated cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 4. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes (cut and fill in CY). Provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Label the downspouts, splash-blocks (2-feet long min) and any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points and grade breaks. Provide dimensions between the bubblers and property lines. In no case shall drainage across property lines exceed that which existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. In particular, runoff from the new garage shall not drain into neighboring property. For additional grading and drainage detail design See Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 The grading plan shall clearly show how all of the site’s impervious area is treated by the bio-retention area. The 5. Provide the following note on the Grading and Drainage Plan and/or Site Plan: “Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering (PWE) Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system (pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection in advance (48-hours, at minimum) by calling (650) 496-6929”. 6. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure, revise the Grading and Drainage plan to direct runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. Flows from the proposed parking lot redesigned shall be directed to on-site pervious areas. 7. Applicant shall be aware that the project may trigger water line and meter upgrades or relocation, if upgrades or relocation are required, the building permit plan set shall plot and label utility changes. If a backflow preventer is required, it shall be located within private property and plotted on the plans. Similarly if a transformer upgrade or a grease interceptor is required it shall also be located within the private property. Plot and label these on the Utility plan. Backflow devices must be located behind the property line. 8. Based on the ARB package, it does not appear that all of the storm water from the project site will be treated. Storm water from the permeable pavement flows directly into the storm drain catch basin in the street. Revise the design so that the storm water bubbles up in the bio-retention area for treatment. Identify the overflow device and only the overflow should be connected to the catch basin in the street. 9. The ARB package shows a new driveway trench drain connecting to the existing sand oil separators. As shown, this trench drain will discharge rain runoff into the sewer system. Typically, this is not preferred by the treatment plant. Applicant shall either drain the trench drain line into the treatment area so that rain water from the driveway is treated or add a valve after the trench drain so that fire department can close the valve when it rains to limit rain runoff from going into the treatment plant. 10. The following item was not addressed with the ARB and shall be revised with the building permit plans. Typically, aside from storm drain system, all utilities shall be designed to avoid the bio-treatment areas. If in the future any utility needs to be replaced, the contractor will be responsible for rebuilding the treatment area and having it re-certified by a third party reviewer. The ARB package shows the proposed sewer line within the bio-retention area. Either relocate the sewer line to avoid the bio-retention area or revise the limits of the bio-retention area to avoid the sewer line. Alternatively if either option is not feasible, provide a detail that shows where the sewer line crosses the treatment area. The detail shall include relationship between the treatment cross-section and sanitary sewer line. 11. The ARB package also shows a French drain is proposed for the permeable pavement detail. This should probably be called out as a perforated drain line not a French drain. Please revise. Also verify that the key notes are referencing the correct the details. For example key note 14 references detail 1 on sheet C5.0. Detail 1 on C5.0 does not show the French drain or the permeable pavement. 12. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (landscape- based treatment controls such as bio-swales, filter strips, and permeable pavement) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the planning application review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the planning application by the Public Works department. 13. Regulated projects with 3,000 SF or more of pervious pavement systems installed required installation inspections. The project is proposing to install permeable pavers, provide permeable pavement area for the site. The plans shall include a detail for the permeable pavement section. The material used on the permeable pavement section shall also be identified as part of the drawings, to verify that the standard CL II AB is not used, referencing the specification is not sufficient. 14. The following note shall be shown on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan: “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.” 15. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite or within private property. 16. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite 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. Similar medallions shall be installed near the catch basins that are proposed to be relocated. Provide notes on the plans to reference that medallions and stencils. 17. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right- of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and/or Caltrans standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center and from Caltrans. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 18. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced or non-standard. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no 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 Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 19. PAVEMENT: This portion of Embarcadero Road was resurfaced in 2015 as such any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan adjacent to the public right-of-way: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing Embarcadero Road and Newell Road, based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full street width along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 20. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732. The ARB package shows the outdated Pollution Prevention sheet. The exhibit was modified in 2015 and the ARB package should use the most current exhibit. 21. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: If the project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL 22. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $551 C.3 (2017FY) plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 23. STORM WATER TREATMENT: At the time of installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, a 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. PUBLIC WORKS – WATERSHED PROTECTION The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: 1. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system, and PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 2. PAMC 16.09.225(b)(9) Vehicle Washing Operations No person shall discharge wastewater from vehicle washing operations or wash racks to the storm drain system or onto the ground. 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, and be equipped with a shut-off drain valve to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system. 3. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 6. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 7. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 8. 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. PUBLIC WORKS - RECYCLING The location of the trash enclosure will require staff to move the carts to the curb. The hauler can pick up the carts in the enclosure, but this will incur a significant "pull-out" charge. Zero Waste strongly recommends removing the public litter can from the outdoor entry area off of Newell Road. If public litter cans are placed at that location, two can - one for garbage and one for recycling - should be at that location. The Fire Department should also verify with CSD and PWD as to who is expected to maintain the public litter can(s). UTILITIES – ELECTRICAL B 1. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. B 2. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal. B 3. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. B 4. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. B 5. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. B 6. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. B 7. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. B 8. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. B 9. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. B 10. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. B 11. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. B 12. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards. B 13. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. B 14. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 B 15. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. B 16. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. B 17. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. B 18. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service: All fees must be paid. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. Easement documents must be completed. UTILITIES – WATER GAS WASTEWATER 1. Prior to Demolition Permit Issuance a) The applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. b) 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 (existing building). 2. Plan Requirements a) 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. b) 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). c) 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 (if required). d) 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. e) 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. f) Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. g) Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. h) 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. i) Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. j) A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan (≥ 1000 SQFT lawn area). 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. 3. For Building Permit a) The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet 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). b) The applicant's engineer may require to submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains (existing 5.4” PE sewer main) 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. c) 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. d) If a new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. e) If a new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. Please see a fire/domestic combination service connection for your project - see City of Palo Alto standard WD-11. f) If a new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. Gas meter to be installed above ground. g) A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans h) All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. i) 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. j) To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of 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. k) All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. PUBLIC ART The applicant intends to incorporate art into the project and has been working with public art program staff to meet with the Public Art Commission. The final review with the Public Art Commission must be completed and the project artist and artwork approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. The artwork must be installed as approved prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. If the applicant chooses to instead pay to the public art fund in – lieu of commissioning art on site, the funds must be received prior to the issuance of a building permit. URBAN FORESTRY 1. Tree Protection Report (TPR): The TPR submitted with the Building Permit shall include protection and water monitoring for any trees to be retained on the site and adjacent trees that overhang the project site. 2. Building Permit: The Building Permit shall include: a. A Tree Disposition Sheet showing all existing conditions of the site, curb cuts, utilities and trees to be retained, removed, and relocated. b. Grading and drainage plan that includes existing and proposed contours @ 2-foot intervals, shows any excavation proposed in the tree protection zone of any regulated trees including parking lot trees overhanging the site. Drainage shall be directed away from any oak. c. Plan notes for any excavation or activity proposed in the TPZ any regulated tree. Indicate on plans the area and details for removal of existing concrete, grading, and irrigation system over tree roots with the dripline area, consistent with TTM, Sec.2.40. d. Accurate locations for TPZ fencing placement, specifying ‘Type I’ around the protected trees and public street trees, as noted in the tree survey or tree preservation report. e. All existing and proposed utility, telecommunication, driveway construction, transformer and pad size, above and below ground locations within the dripline of any regulated tree. Avoid any reference to utilities within 10 feet of public trees on either side of the sidewalk. f. 3. During Construction: a. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. b. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. c. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (name of certified arborist of record and phone #), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. d. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. e. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. f. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. g. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 4. Prior to Occupancy: a. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953). b. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. c. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. d. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. 5. Post Construction: All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. ATTACHMENT E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 799 Embarcadero Road / File No. 16PLN-123 Goal C-1: Effective and efficient delivery of community services A new code-compliant, modern, safe station will allow for more effective and efficient emergency services and related activities Goal C-4: Attractive, well-maintained community facilities that serve residents The proposed station will be attractive and allow for easier maintenance in the long term Policy C-24: Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance The aging facility does not meet today’s needs for a modern fire station providing adequate storage, service areas and resident amenities Policy C-62: Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Dormitories, office and utility space are on the 2nd floor; apparatus bays and public functions are on the 1st floor. The community will always need a fire station in this part of the City. Program L-49: Maintain and support historic or consistent design character in areas with such character The design respects the surrounding mid-century institutional character but does not replicate the character; project uses materials in a way that is compatible with mid-century design concepts Policy L-50: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs The existing wood monument sign will be relocated to the corner of the site; an above- canopy sign is indicated facing Newell Rd; a window sign is indicated facing Embarcadero Rd. Policy L-58: Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings The project is to demolish rather than reuse the old building, given the safety and other needs of the community, and to meet code requirements Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The selected architectural style will be compatible with mid-century institutional buildings in the area. The proposal would not impact adjacent public park (Rinconada) trees or uses (with additional landscaping to soften the precast concrete wall). High quality materials are proposed throughout the project. An uncovered, 2nd floor ‘residential’ terrace would face the park. 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 blank The new building and site improvements provide architectural and pedestrian interest at the street level; pedestrian entry plaza on Newell and at corner. Solid and fairly blank walls are part of the design due to the uses within the building; however glass garage doors face Embarcadero, and glass is proposed at the or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. pedestrian entrance and watch room that face Newell. Policy L-66: Maintain an aesthetically pleasing street network that helps frame and define the community while meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The proposal provides pedestrian plazas for greater pedestrian and bicyclist access to and around the site; new trees provide a rhythm along the Newell Road sidewalk, and bike racks and seating will meet their needs. Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. No street trees will be removed or installed; new trees are proposed inboard of the sidewalk, in a supportive growing environment, to provide partial shade over the sidewalk at maturity. Program L-71: Recognize Embarcadero Road (and other roads noted) as a scenic route (providing main access to the Baylands and secondary access to Stanford University. Embarcadero Road frontage improvements noted above will contribute to this scenic route. Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art compatible with the character and identity of the neighborhood Public art is tentatively proposed for the pedestrian plaza area. The Public Art Commission will review the artists and select the art piece. Policy L-62: Provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art The plaza will have two backed benches and is targeted for public art piece Policy L-74: Use the work of artists, landscape architects, etc. in the design and improvement of public spaces. The project will feature the work of an artist, and the City’s landscape architect has contributed positively to the engineering firm’s initial design. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. The surface parking facility will be behind the building and screened from side are rear views via see-through security gate and solid concrete walls. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Proposed bike racks, lockers and pedestrian improvements will encourage biking and walking to and around the site. Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, secure, bicycle parking… Bicycle parking for eight bicyclists is proposed. Policy L-76: Require trees and other landscaping within parking lots New trees are proposed off site to provide some canopy overhanging parking spaces. No new trees are proposed within the parking lot Program L-75: Program for implementing codes requiring trees capable of providing 50% shade in parking lots within 15 years The reconfigured parking lot, with the placeholder stealth tree/wireless communication facility approximates the 50% shade policy. Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage Two protected oak trees and one protected trees, including native oaks and other significant trees on public and private property. redwood will be preserved in place. Several significant and protected trees nearby on the adjacent Rinconada Park will be preserved and protected. Policy N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and the San Francisco Bay Pervious parking space pavement, C3 swales and permeable landscaping are features of the project. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 799 Embarcadero Road/Fire Station #3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PF Public Facilities ZONE DISTRICT ZONE DISTRICT STANDARD EXISTING/ PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE Uses Allowed Allowable use, Fire Station Fire Station conforms Minimum Building setback Equal to setback required in most restrictive abutting district – no interior yard less than 10 feet PF conforms Front Yard (Embarcadero) 24 feet special setback 51 feet (existing) 35 feet (proposed) conforms Rear Yard (Hopkins) 20 feet Minor increase in setback from existing conforms Interior Side Yard (Park) 10 feet No change; Parkland boundary is not a lot line conforms Street Side Yard (Newell Road) 24 feet special setback 27 feet conforms Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) 30% Proposed: 17.2% Conforms Maximum Height 35’ within 150’ of residential zone 15 feet, existing height; 33’5”, proposed height top of parapet center structure; 30’ top of parapet of wings conforms Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1:1 Less than 0.17:1 conforms Parking Requirement Specific to use 5 existing vehicle spaces; 9 proposed including ADA and 2 EV capable spaces; 8 bike parking spaces proposed Conforms per 18.52.070 C(1) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Present: Chair Robert Gooyer, Vice Chair Alexander Lew, Board Members Peter Baltay, Kyu Kim Absent: Board Member Wynne Furth Action Item #3 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 799 Embarcadero Road [PLN16-00123]: Applicant's Request for Architectural Review Approval of a Two-Story, 6,663 Square Foot Replacement Fire Station Building Located on the Northwest Corner of Embarcadero and Newell Roads Adjacent to the Southeasterly Edge of Rinconada Park on an 18.27 Acre Property. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures). Zoning District: Public Facility (PF). Chair Gooyer: Why don't we start with Item Number 3, a public hearing? 799 Embarcadero Road, applicant's request for Architectural Review approval of a two-story, 6,663-square-foot replacement fire station building located on the northwest corner of Embarcadero and Newell Roads, adjacent to the southeasterly edge of Rinconada Park on an 18.27-acre property. Environmental assessment, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to Section 15302. Staff. Amy French: Orienting myself to the microphone here. The last we were together regarding this fire station project was in June of this year. On the screen, you'll see the three conceptual options that were presented at that time: one with a flat roof, one with a gable eave sort of pitched roof, and a third with a curved, asymmetrical roof. They're on the screen there. I wanted to show that to you. At the time, the Board was supportive of the clay tile—what is it called? Terracotta tile. You have the sample at your places there. There were some other comments that came from the Board. Applicant has returned with a plan set with site sections as requested and other items, details. It's a complete set. I'll go back to the beginning of this. It is, for the benefit of the public, an 18.27-acre site that includes a Category 1 historic resource and other potential resources, such as the Girl Scout House, that are being reviewed and studied at the moment in connection with the Junior Museum and Zoo project that has not yet come forward for review in a formal application. The other resources nearby are the Rinconada Library and Art Center, which are across the street, across Newell Road. It is within a neighborhood of single-family homes across Embarcadero and on the other side of Hopkins. The station is adjacent to the swim center and Rinconada Park, which is characterized by mature trees. Here are views of the existing station, the old view of it in 1948 when it was first constructed with its old fire engines there. We have some images of it today. On the upper-right image, you can see that's pretty well screened by some oleanders at the corner. There is this hedge and fence, kind of split-rail fence, that separates the site from the park next door. There are three protected trees onsite: two oaks and a redwood. The redwood is adjacent to this flagpole that is a stealth flagpole - we'll talk about that later - for cell communications. The project is to demolish a 15-foot tall, one-story building and construct a 33-foot and 5-inches tall, two-story building with the same functions on the site. Not an increase in the number of firefighters that can live there or temporarily live there or any other increase in demand, that kind of thing. It's just meeting current Codes, State Codes, Safety Codes, those kinds of things. On the site there are the 24-foot special setbacks on Newell and Embarcadero, which means that a building cannot be placed within that setback ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: December 1, 2016 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 but other items can, such as the plaza that's proposed. In this site plan, you can see the three protected trees retained. There's some storm water, C-3 design to handle the runoff. There is this plaza, which the ARB had in June asked that there be more focus on that. It came back bigger with more amenities including a public art proposal that has not yet gone through the Public Art Commission. There are some other features. It still has an ingress for the fire trucks here and egress out onto Embarcadero as proposed in June. There is this placeholder for a cell tower, because the project will be removing the stealth flagpole, wireless tower. There's this potential site here in the corner, and there is a discussion that has been held so far with the purveyor of cell service about going into this corner and proposing a fake conifer tree. I'm just showing where that is. Here's the flagpole. Again, it's not part of this application, but as long as we're here, it's good to see where that would be proposed potentially. Here is where this site would be, seeing it from Newell and seeing it from across the street at the Art Center. This also shows that there is some shade now on the existing parking lot at the rear. That shade would continue to be there. The parking lot is being adjusted somewhat, so the 50-percent shade requirement comes in. That fake conifer can actually meet the requirements of the 50-percent shade if that's the plan that comes forward. Again, these are views of the site from the Rinconada Park in the proximity of the Junior Museum and Zoo and Girl Scout House. This is from that path across from the Art Center. The site sections provided do show that there are one-story structures opposite the roadways. Those are pitched roofs. This was something that the HRB was wrestling with a bit as far as roof options. Again, what the ARB saw back in June on roof options and the style. What came back to the HRB was this drawing in the lower corner. They were concerned that it was bunker like and needed to have something more to it. Staff had conversations with the applicant, who came back then with an additional window here—this is in the exercise room—and this split here with a glass feature to break up the box that is made of metal panel. Over on Embarcadero, the architect can go into this with more detail. There was concern that having some better window looks over here. The window size has increased as far as these clerestory windows. This is not window here. From the park, there was an image that was shown, that had a shrub of some kind, but that is, I think, not in existence. What's come back is vines here to screen some of that fence and provide a pleasant view. It also shows the tree that is showing up in the site plan and the landscape plans to mitigate or interrupt the views. You can also see this window that they added since the HRB meeting. One other thing that came up with the HRB was a discussion about borrowing some features from the Rinconada Library. The architect will explain how that was done in the original set with that terracotta tile as a nod to this and also the wall. I'll let them go. One more image is just showing you these fake cell tower trees, just so you get an idea of what could be coming forward in a future application. Thank you. I'm here for questions. Chair Gooyer: Is the applicant here? Jodie Gerhardt: Just to confirm, Board Member Baltay arrived during the staff presentation. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: While they're getting ready, do either of you have any questions of staff? Board Member Kim: I have a quick question. On page 6 of the staff report, under building finishes and details, that first paragraph, the last sentence of the first paragraph says glass rollup vehicle doors are proposed on both front and rear elevations. When I look at the plans, the elevation facing Embarcadero, it looks like those are actually side-folding doors. I want to get some confirmation on whether they're the same glass rollup doors or not. Ms. French: I'll let the architect address that. Alan Kawasaki: Thank you. You've noticed. You're looking at the elevations closely. In talking with the Fire Department, the side-opening will be used in the front because those are fast acting and very safe and durable. The less expensive rollup will be used in the back. Board Member Kim: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: You have 10 minutes. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mr. Kawasaki: Chair Gooyer and Board Members Baltay, Kim and Lew, thanks for seeing us again. I just want to also express that this a great opportunity for us as architects, because the topic and the site and all that is extremely interesting. I want to make mention about modernism. I think there have been discussions about that. In our view, modernism as a style or a movement in general but mid-century in particular had—it's really about some principles rather than actually forms. It's about principles. That's why we believe that modernism today still endures. It's the same principles. Those principles included industrialism and technology, a belief in that and that those would be in service to humanity or to make, say, livable forms. There's limited reference to historical styles in it. They don't look back; it's all about today; it's all about what is relevant in today's environment. A lack of ornament. These are all things, of course, we've all had in school, so just a reminder. Of course, form follows function. Somehow out of the program and sort of solving problems, real problems, the form of the building would come. I'll take a minute talking about some of the functional elements, and that'll help us decide about the form. The first point I would make is that in designing fire stations, the first thing we do is we worry about safety. One of the reasons why we're doing this station is because of safety and the Fire Department coming to us and saying, "We have a really unsafe situation where we have fire trucks that are backing up from Embarcadero into the station." There are, of course, children and other people coming along Embarcadero. What we want to have is a drive-through station. In order to get this station, which is approximately twice as much square footage, onto the site, you can imagine the major constraint besides the desire to do this are the trees. We're saving three major trees on the site. Not surprisingly, the footprint ends up being pretty much the same footprint for a two-story building as a single-story building with some adjustments in order to accomplish the program. The first programmatic element is when you're putting an engine onto a station in a drive-through, you need—the prevailing thought is 60 feet minimum, 65 feet ideally. We don't have that kind of room. We pushed the station forward a bit, about 5 feet. That is the apparatus bay. We have about 55 feet, and still that wasn't enough. What we did was we widened the doors a little bit. Actually we're not completely perpendicular until we're actually inside the station. That gives you an indication of how tight this site is. Fitting between the trees and getting this in, getting all the turning radiuses, etc., was really important. You see also where the entry is. The current entry is off of Embarcadero, and you walk across the drive where the apparatus are coming out and people with bicycles getting registered. It's not safe. We said, "Let's put the entry on Newell." That's why essentially we have these little pods or squares left over on the site in terms of the building footprint. The section closest to Newell is where we put the building entry. Getting into the plan. From that entry, you'll see that you come in, and then what you have is a watch room—that's just like an office—on the right and the public restroom. There's a low wall with a door on it, so the public doesn't come into the station. You have the apparatus bay and then of course the port for the apparatus. Those are all pretty much what you have to do based upon this footprint. Upstairs, we went through several options with the Fire Department. Of course, it's all about speed, right? What we're trying to do is get the firefighters into the apparatus as quickly as possible. We decided—in the dayroom is where they are most of the time—to put that back towards the entry stair. There's also a pole that goes straight down; I don't know if you noticed that in the plan. That is the closest area. They wanted the dorms, the sleeping areas, on the park side of the building. We discussed with you during our study session we were going through three styles. I did mention to you that the Fire Department had a preference for the flat—roofed building and also for the terracotta. We discussed that. I think pretty much everyone seemed to be in line with the terracotta. There was more discussion about whether it should be flat or whether it should be sloped. I think what came to us also during the study session is, guys, if you want to do slope, if you want to proceed with the slope, these are some things that we would ask you to come back and address. That's we've come back today for. If I just note that the one point—it's kind of hard to read on the far left. Somehow, you said, we need to break the mass up. If we're going to use these sort of cubes or flat roofs, we need to either vary the height, maybe we need to add some windows. You also said that we need to activate the corner. You were concerned about the kids queuing up for the crosswalks, and maybe we can do something more, to do something at the corner. Most particularly, you said let's think about the entry plaza and sort of make that whole pod there more welcoming. What we're showing you today is something developed in the past 3 weeks. It actually is something that the HRB has not seen. Many of your comments are really the same kind of concerns that they had, and I think we've addressed that. This is a rendering of the most current design. City of Palo Alto Page 4 As I mentioned to you, what we've done is the side gray boxes have been lowered. The center terracotta box has been raised about, I think, a foot and a half, and the others were lowered a foot and a half. It's about a 3-foot difference between the two kinds of elements. I'll show you some plans on the corner, and then the civic design that we've done for the plaza. Just again to recall the material selection that we had. Firefighters, fire stations, if you ask a firefighter what they want, they'll say, "Give me a brick fire station. Give me that traditional station." We want to do something of our time, so terracotta, and we want to do rainscreen these days because of energy concerns. Rainscreen has continuous rigid insulation on the outside of the building. The façade, the terracotta, is hung off that or in this case terracotta or metal panel. This is new technology related to green building and reflective of our time, of course. That's what we proceeded with. Of course, we liked the terracotta because we could refer to the screen around the existing library, which is built of terracotta. As a second primary color, we chose to have this sort of dark, gun metal gray also within the library complex. Those are the two colors we chose to tie the two projects through color rather than necessarily shape. Other things we did were, for instance, the wall that surrounds. They want a really abuse-resistant wall, so we pulled in—there's a cast concrete wall at the front of the library, a new one, so we pulled that same thing into the surround of the new structure. This is resultant as again for the elevation or perspective. Note the sign that's at the corner. What this really says is this is a civic building. This is what we discussed with you. Should it be civic, should it be residential? I think the determination was, we all agreed, it should be a civic gesture. We're coming into a civic area. We coming into Rincon Park, so the signage here denotes that as does the building. What we did was we widened the area along the corner to give it a little more room for the kids in the crosswalk. Of course we have in a dry streambed for water conservation, and then we've added some California native landscaping through here. On the plaza itself, because we have the grade change, we used things like steps and ramps, and then we added elements such as benches and water fountains. There's even a bike area now, of course, for LEED as well as a bike repair station that's there as well. Those things together with addressing your concerns about the façade—we've broken up the boxes and added more fenestration as was mentioned. There's almost, I would call it, more of a cubist style of design here. This is more sculptural in terms of the front entry elevation. The rear elevations have quite a bit of trees. We've actually added more. I know that there was some concern about variation. As I mentioned, we have varied the box look. Let me just remove some trees so you can actually see what's behind them. The lower box, the dorm box, is as I said 3 feet lower than the main box as is the entry cube as well. That wall has now been—there's a creeping vine across that entire concrete wall so that actually begins to mimic what's there now, which is a wood fence, of course, with planting on it. This is just the front-on elevations, inside elevations with that wall. I know one of the comments was thinking about that wall and its relationship to the metal panel above. Our decision was to flesh it out; we thought that would be really nice. The metal wall and the surface and the concrete wall surface are in the same plane. Architecturally, it'll be interesting, the fifth façade. The other thing, I think, that was really nice about your suggestion to increase the height differences is that we now have a better place to hide some of the mechanics, including PV panels. PV panels today have to be changed over time. Another shadow study is in here as well. The net shadow in red is very small. That is our presentation. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? Board Member Kim: I have a quick question. Could you tell me how many firefighters there are at the station at one time? Mr. Kawasaki: They will be using the same number of firefighters, which should be three. There are three rooms. One of the rooms has got another bed in it, and that's what we call our ride-along. They have training people who come. At maximum, there will be four. In terms of the parking in the back, you can also note that you have to deal with shift change, so there's more than four parking spaces. At 8:00, the new crew comes on, the old crew goes out. We can't really park them across the street; we've got to keep them on site. Board Member Kim: Are there any guest parking requirements? City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Kawasaki: Unfortunately, there's not enough room on the site. There's no requirement for that other than the accessible parking. I know when I go to the station, I actually park at the library, and I walk across the street. I think that's probably what guests will have to do. Board Member Kim: Just one final question. I know that with today's regulations, there's an exhaust capture system that has to happen inside the fire station. I didn't see any—maybe I missed it. How does that work? Where does that exhaust come out of the station? Mr. Kawasaki: They're called Climavent or Nederman systems. Basically there's like a dryer hose that goes to the tailpipe, and then it goes up. There are tracks above. That's one of the reasons why stations are very tall; it's actually 1 1/2 stories compared to other houses. It's 18 feet floor to floor on the first elevation because of all the stuff that goes up there. Board Member Kim: Once it goes to the ceiling, does it exit out the side of the building or does it actually continue up through the second floor and out the top? Mr. Kawasaki: It goes up through the second floor, and up to the roof. Board Member Kim: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anything else? Board Member Baltay: Very quickly if I could. On the west side of the site, facing the park, as I'm looking at the drawing to the right, there seems to be an area in the parking lot that, as I read the keynote, says emergency generator and then trash enclosure. Can you just tell me more completely what's in that section of the site? Mr. Kawasaki: Yes. Actually I'm wondering if maybe I can go back to a floor plan. You're talking about on the left. There's a generator. From the orange part on the left, above that, the first set of boxes. That's a trash enclosure. We like to put a covering on that, but leave the sides open so the air can come through. There's an emergency generator. Part of the Essential Service Act is that if there is an emergency and we lose power to the building, we need to maintain power to the fire station for 72 hours. There's a generator there with a diesel belly tank, and that powers the station. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Board Member Kim: I have one more question. I'm just kind of curious. I noticed that there are these firewalls in certain areas of the building. With regards to the pole, if we're looking at it in a plan, I know that horizontally that's covered with the firewalls. How does that work vertically? Is there some kind of a filter? Mr. Kawasaki: You have to separate the apparatus bay, which is S occupancy, from the R occupancy, which is above. It's a one-hour separation. Actually what happens is there's a closet around that. You can see in the plan there's a closet on the second floor. Board Member Kim: The separation actually happens at the wall, so there's no separation between the floors per se? Mr. Kawasaki: The floor is also rated one hour between the apparatus bay and the floor above. Board Member Kim: There's an opening where the pole is, right? It's a … Mr. Kawasaki: Where the opening is, see where it says dayroom? Board Member Kim: Mm hmm. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Kawasaki: Just to the left of the day, you can see the X where the pole is. That's a closet; we call it a pole closet. That one-hour rating comes up into the closet, and the door has a closer on it. Board Member Kim: Understood. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anything else? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this Board on this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back to the Board. Peter, you want to start? Board Member Baltay: Sure. Good morning. Thank you for the very clear presentation. I do find myself persuaded, as I was back in April, about your site planning choices, about the need for the drive-through fire station. All that makes sense. I appreciate the complexity of a constrained site, etc. I have, I guess, two concerns. They both have to do with the building, in my mind, just looking a little bit too boxy. I appreciate your wanting to make it modern and support that. Other buildings in the area were modern for their time, and this should be the same. However, I think it just looks boxy, especially the two-story apparatus bay. My biggest concern is the element to the left of that as you're looking from Embarcadero, the dormitory rooms. I see no change to the floor plan whatsoever from the presentation you gave us in April. At least I made a pretty clear statement, I thought, that the two-story element next to the park was inappropriately tall. It's right at the property line or what people would construe to be the property line. I haven't changed my opinion of that. I go back to the site; I look at the plans. I'm trying very hard to want it to be modern and understand the boxiness may be appropriate or at least necessary. I'm not persuaded by the dormitory element next to the park. My question about the emergency generator had to do with wondering if you've explored the possibility of lowering that element and perhaps stretching the building along the boundary line there into that area where you have a trash enclosure and a generator. Perhaps you could put the generator in the very back corner between the parking stalls, which is not really useful for anything else. It strikes me that it's worth exploring somehow lowering the height of the element next to the park to be one story or a sharply sloped roof or do something to make it not just a two-story, gray wall. In my trips to that site, there are people relaxing in the park there. The shadow studies confirm that this will have a big impact on the park, on the use of that part of the park. I think it will also just look not the way a civic building should look. It's not an attractive something people are proud of from the park. Rather, it's just a tall box, the part you see from the park. I contrast that to what I see from Newell Road, which I find attractive. The main entrance, that rendering you showed, I think is a very admirable piece of architecture. The entrance looks good. I can easily see the citizens liking this building, over time it becoming part of our cultural fabric. I really wish I could say the same for the other side of the building, and I can't. My other thought has to do again with the proposed metal paneling for what I call the gray box. I'm concerned that that will end up being reflective. I'm also concerned that it might not pass the test of time as far as a civic building lasting for 50, for 100 years without needing undue maintenance. Maintenance doesn't always happen on public buildings. You want to design for something that's really bulletproof. Have you considered just a poured-in-place concrete, textured, colored, something like that? You could have the same architectural effect and you may find that it's just a lot more long lasting without—that was my initial reaction looking at the elevations, what a cool use of concrete. Get somebody good to build that, and it'll look great. I find your use of the terracotta very nice. I think it's appropriate for a fire station. The detailing you're doing does hark back to what's done at the library. I think it's appropriate. Again, my biggest concern is the massing next to the park and then some thought about the metal panels. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Kyu. Board Member Kim: Thank you for coming back to the Board and giving us that very clear presentation. I wanted to thank you for some of the changes that I've seen and that you've made. Such changes as giving some more thought to the corner and the crosswalk areas; keeping the two separate bay entries and two separate doorways; the entry plaza, the more civic plaza area there. Also, there seems to be some change in proportions of the materials. I think originally the metal panel or concrete or the gray areas were a little bit smaller in proportion. I like that you've varied that to be a larger proportion in City of Palo Alto Page 7 contrast to the smaller proportions of the terracotta. I know originally I had some opinions regarding some of the proportions and maybe even the materials. I think with the proportions that you have going on right now, it feels much more natural and something that looks aesthetically pleasing. While I like the corner cutout for the crosswalk area, I'm just wondering if it could be even a little bit wider. The reason I have that thought is because I was looking at the—could you go to the slide that shows that corner actually? It was a colored plan. I think you get a lot of both pedestrian and bicycle traffic coming from Newell as well. I know that the curb cut at the actual corner there is a very small slope, but I think the actual portion of non-sloped curb cut as you make your way around that corner to cross over Embarcadero becomes a little bit too thin. I'm thinking maybe that plaza could be—not plaza. What do you call it there? Chair Gooyer: Paved corner. Board Member Kim: Paved corner could be a little bit more generous to the Newell side. I noticed that you have a water foundation at the civic plaza. I almost thought maybe it could be nice if the water fountain was actually at that corner area, where the kids riding to and from school and home. Maybe it becomes a regular stop for them to come into that corner and to take a sip of water. I'm just wondering how many people are going to actually use the water fountain when you've got to go up the steps or the ramp to that civic plaza there. I appreciate the benches, the seating. I think the change in level there is actually quite nice. Thank you for the bicycle parking as well. Overall, I realize it's somewhat of a utilitarian building. It's a civic building. It's a fire station. I understand that, I think. Having said that, the corner treatment at the Newell-Embarcadero corner, I think it's acceptable the way it is, but I would really encourage you to see if there's a way of breaking that up a little bit. I think the HRB made some similar comments to that corner. Actually, I do have a quick question. You did mention in your presentation that some changes have been made, that the HRB did not see. Is that change in height between the metal panel areas and the terracotta areas, was that something the HRB did not see? Mr. Kawasaki: I can answer now. They saw the change in elevation. I think the changes since HRB were primarily in the fenestration, the windows and that sort of thing. Board Member Kim: I would just encourage you—if we can take another look at the corner, perhaps it feels a little bit too boxy still. I think overall it's a very handsome building. I think it's coming along very nicely. I appreciate the thought that you've put into our comments and addressing the firefighters' needs. I think it's going to be a great contribution back to the City and to the community. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Alex. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. You gave a great presentation, and the drawing set really was very complete. I think you've made a lot of improvements from the last time we saw it. Generally, I can support the project. Like Board Member Baltay, my main concern was from the park side view of the project. I guess in my mind when I was looking at the set, I wasn't quite so worried about having the two-story element right on the edge of the park. In my mind, it was more of the character, just having a concrete wall with the creeping fig. It seemed a little out of character for the area. I would just say just by comparison—I don't think you're that far off from the rest of the park. I guess I would say the pool building is concrete block, but it's a warmer color and there's a trellis. The substation has a wood screen fence around it. It's just a different palette. It's a little bit more open. It seems to me that you have constraints with the diesel generator and you would want a solid wall around the generator and what not. It would seem to me that if there's a way of making the fence a little bit more open, even if it's just on one side, maybe if it's not solid all the way around or if there is a way to enhance the planting actually on the park side of the property. I think you're proposing to remove the oleanders, which is fine with me. That's good. It seems like there could be more on the park edge. There are picnic areas that back up right up against the fire station. I guess that would be a question for your landscape design. Also, I understand there's the park boundary, but I would imagine the project boundary could be different. Could the project boundary extend into the park or no? City of Palo Alto Page 8 Ms. French: The project boundary and the park boundary are the same. Since it is a City project, enhanced plantings in the park that would be associated with this project would be just a coordination with the Master Plan … Vice Chair Lew: Of the park. Ms. French: … with the landscape architect for the City. Vice Chair Lew: As it is now, does this have to go to Parks and Rec for review, like the Parks and Rec Commission or whatnot? Ms. French: The plantings in the park, I'm not sure whether that needs to go to the Park and Rec. It's not a different use. When it's a use consideration, that would go to the Parks and Rec. Certainly they're not proposing to change the park boundary. Certainly that would have to go all the way up to Council. Vice Chair Lew: It would go to the voters actually. Ms. French: Yeah, beyond Council. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. That was my main concern. I did have a secondary concern which is your Newell Road-facing portion of the building. I think for the public that's going to be the biggest change that they're going to really see. The rest of the building is different but it's not that far off from the existing building. When I was looking at the metal siding that you're proposing, I was actually worried that it would be too light. The sample's actually very dark. That's actually much darker than I would normally see in it. I think that that's actually better. I was actually wondering if there are any other alternates. I'm not going to propose anything in particular, but I was just wondering if there was another option. There was a contingent of the HRB that was concerned about the character of the building, that it was a little out of character. It seems to me that the metal siding would be the one place where it could be more residential looking. It could still be modern, but it seems to me that would be the one place that you could make a change. Generally, I do support the project. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I wasn't here for the first go-around, so these are sort of my first inputs. I agree. To me the building is just too boxy. I understand the whole concept of modern and that sort of thing. First of all, part of it is fighting the modern aspect of it, just the location and the background with the trees and everything else. Not that I expect it to be a fuzzy, wood building, one-story. That's not really necessary. I understand the requirement for the two stories, so I don't really have a problem with the volume of it. It's more a matter—I've done a couple of fire stations. Let's face it, that's the way they're built now, in one side, out the other. That's the way they need to be. I like the terracotta. I just have a real problem with the metal. Part of it is also what my fellow Board Members said here. As with so many other things like this or even the existing one is approaching 70 years old, I just think from a longevity standpoint, I don't think the metal is going to last 70 years. If it is, it's going to be a horrendous maintenance issue 30 years down the road. I don't know with concrete, but it is a viable thing that still has a modern edge to it. Let's face it, there's not a longevity issue with concrete. I'm not telling you what the material should be. I just don't think metal is the right solution. The other thing is that yesterday was the first time I'd seen this sort of option 1, 2 and 3. I think probably I would have voted more for Option 3 with a sloped roof. I don't think, like I said, you need to copy what's across the street, but this building—if you look at it just standing by itself, it's a very delicate, nice looking building. Unfortunately I don't really think it relates to anything around the area other than maybe the terracotta. I'd like to see more possibly of a sloped roof. Not a hipped roof but a sloped roof maybe with a little bit of an overhang so it does somewhat relate to the buildings across the street. The angle can be different, that sort of thing. It's just the whole idea of more of a top to it, a cap on it. I think that would eliminate a lot of the boxiness of it. It's mainly the perception of boxes when you have a flat roof and no overhang. It's almost a given that you create that. Also from the view we're looking at, this is not a very—not that it needs to be inviting, but it's a very—I don't know. I have a problem with this as far as the front entry to the building. I think it's something—again it may work in some other situation, but City of Palo Alto Page 9 based on the location and what people have been used to for the last 50 years, this is an awful drastic change. I'm not saying that's not always a good thing, but I think in this particular case that needs to be toned down a little bit. Like I said, I like the plan. The other thing is if you're going to go to this sort of edge, the first thing that I thought about is with the metal panel to do something like the de Young Museum did. If you're going to go out on a limb like that, then it makes it more of a relationship to across the street with the Edward Durell Stone, sort of mimicking—not that I'm saying it's appropriate here, but that was sort of the first thing that caught my eye. Then I could see it's a definite statement, that's why the metal is there rather than just it's an alternative. Like I said, I'm not expecting a mini de Young Museum standing there. That was just the idea that it's something that would relate to across the street in a very unusual fashion. Any other … Vice Chair Lew: Robert, could you clarify that? You mean the copper color or the texture? Chair Gooyer: No, no, I'm talking about the actual texture of the finish itself. Let's face it, it's a huge— you've seen it I'm sure. It's a huge building with small holes around the—in that scale, I think it's way too big. In this scale, I think it might be interesting. Again, it relates to the fence, for instance, that you saw across the street. It's a way to pull the variation in. Any comments from anybody else? Board Member Kim: Yeah. I was curious about the gate that you see here in this perspective, the more open gate. Are there some details of that gate, what material is it, what is it painted? I was also wondering can that be used all the way around the site instead of the fully solid concrete? I don't think I have so much a problem with the two-story façade against the park, but I do think that the fence there, with it being a solid concrete, might feel a little bit too harsh even with the vine on it. I'm wondering if you can use this kind of fence design instead or maybe even something like a gabion fence or at least it feels a little bit more open and a little bit warmer and inviting. I forgot to mention earlier, but I really like the slit that you have going on here for the entry at this box here. I think with regards to Chair Gooyer's comments about the entrance, I like that the door is wood. Maybe there's an opportunity to use a little bit more of that wood to create an even warmer, inviting entry. I think your choice in doing that was appreciated by me. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anything else? I think that's it. Mr. Kawasaki: Can we respond? Is that appropriate? Chair Gooyer: Pardon me? Mr. Kawasaki: I can give some generally response. Obviously we will need time to … Chair Gooyer: Sure if you like. Mr. Kawasaki: … flesh it out in detail. Board Member Baltay, I want to address your concern, because certainly we did hear that concern about the height and all that along that part. We did drop it 1 foot, no a foot and a half, that box. What we did is we took the parapet of the gray box down a foot and a half and then we raised the parapet of the terracotta up a foot and a half, so there's a 3 foot delta. It's still not a gravel stop. As we know, we could take it down all the way to a gravel stop. The other thing we could do is we could talk to the Fire Department. Right now, I believe we have 9-foot ceilings. That's what they like to have, but we know in many residences they're 8 feet. If there's concern about the height, maybe we can work on that a little bit and see if we can reduce it. The problem is—I know why you were also suggesting perhaps to consider going out towards the generator is to maybe make the rooms thinner and pull them back off the fence. Certainly we'll take a look at that as well. I want to say we did not ignore. We'll take another pass at your concern regarding the height of the building along that edge. Board Member Baltay: If I can chime in quickly, if we're going to do this kind of discussion. I'm convinced by my Board Members saying I think it's not a matter of the height. It's a matter of how it City of Palo Alto Page 10 looks from the park. Ultimately I think you may well have a two-story building there, but it has to appear appropriate, it has to appear pleasant. Something when you're having a picnic with your family you don't mind looking at. Right now, I wouldn't characterize it that way. Mr. Kawasaki: We will go back and take a look at that side. That was one topic inclusive of we will take a look at the material and whether or not it could be more transparent somehow, perhaps even pick up some of the—for instance the fence around the library has some level of openness to it. We'll take a look at other materials there as well. As far as the metal panels, also we'll take a look at other materials. I hear the concern. As we know, the first choice of the terracotta is exactly because it's forever. You never paint it, you never maintain it. Yes, there are concrete materials, so we'll take a look at the concrete materials. We are trying to use a rainscreen, so there are thin concretes that can be used in a rainscreen manner. We'll take a look at that as well. There's some landscape issues; I don't know if you'd like our landscape architect to address that. It's on the corner. I know we tried to make it as large as possible. I don't know if there is any additional design. Is the landscape architect not here? No. We will give some additional direction to the landscape architect to see if we can't improve the dimension of that area. I think actually the drinking fountain idea is a great idea. I would love that if I was a kid and coming home, to be able to drink from there. In any case, we do appreciate your comments, and we will address all of them. Thank you very much. Chair Gooyer: Sure, go ahead. Vice Chair Lew: I just had one last comment. This may be for staff. On the public art component, which is tentatively proposed for the plaza, I was wondering if there had been any discussion about putting something on the park side. Like a mural or something on the park side. Ms. French: I hadn't heard, but that's certainly something that the applicant, who would be meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission—the Public Works staff are here. They may know if there's a date. Matt Raschke: Matt Raschke, Public Works Engineering. The public art liaison, Elise DeMarzo, has informed us that they've selected an artist. The idea was to put the art in the front plaza on Newell Street. The artist they selected tends towards mechanical art that is interactive, where you might turn a crank and something happens. He had some very nice examples of his work. Vice Chair Lew: That sounds great. That sounds perfect for all the kids going by the fire station. Mr. Kawasaki: Amy, can I make one other response point to one of the concerns? I do want to just—we didn't have time to go through this. I also appreciate, Board Member Baltay, your saying that as long as we address some of the issues about shadows. In terms of the height, you can see it. There is a difference to the shadow, but the delta is actually on that side very small. This funny shaped thing on the left, the one on the upper right is actually the casting from the wall not from the building. There's a shadow created by the building into the parking lot, but the wall itself is casting a shadow. The second story at the dorm room does have a small, but nonetheless it's a concern. I think we will definitely address the issues of the feel of that side, so it's more interesting. At least the shadow part was not a lot in our opinion. Chair Gooyer: You pretty much know what we're thinking then? Mr. Kawasaki: Yes, we do. Chair Gooyer: Sounds good. Thank you. I think that'll be it then. Ms. French: One possibility as far as we need to continue the public hearing on this, is what I'm hearing. We'd want to suggest that there are some dates out there, January 19th being the first possible date. If the applicant's architect is … City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Gooyer: That's pretty much okay. See what they can work with. Ms. French: We're wrecking the holidays, but you know. Chair Gooyer: Are you comfortable with coming back at that time? Mr. Kawasaki: Yes. Chair Gooyer: That'd be fine. MOTION: Vice Chair Lew: We have to make a motion and whatnot. I will move that we continue the project to January 19, 2017. Board Member Baltay: I'll second that. Chair Gooyer: Can I get a second? Board Member Baltay: I second that. Chair Gooyer: All in favor. Opposed. All Board Members voting in favor with Board Member Furth absent. MOTION PASSED Chair Gooyer: We'll see you on the 19th then. Palo Alto Fire Station No. 3 ARB Resubmittal Comment Responses January 4, 2017 ITEM # ARB COMMENT SKA RESPONSE 1 Massing next to the park might not be appropriate. Due to the site constrictions and the programmatic needs and wants of the firefighters, the floor plans have remained as is. The west building elevation massing has been broken up by one of the dormitory windows extending through the roof, similar to the entry on the east elevation. 2 Metal panels might not be long-lasting and would need undue maintenance. Alucobond metal panels have a finish warranty of 20 years, though previous examples in the Bay Area, such as One Front Street in San Francisco, have metal panels in great condition that have lasted for over 35 years. This material is also entrusted to be installed in long-lasting buildings, such as SFO's new control tower. But to further address this longevity concern, we would like to propose an alternate material of zinc panels. These panels are natural, durable and low/no-maintenance. The material warranty for Rheinzink is 20 years, though the life expectancy for façade panels is over 200 years. 3 Paved corner of Newell Road and Embarcadero Road can be more generous, especially on the Newell side. The paved corner has been expanded in area. Because of guy wires and anchors on site near the paved corner, it cannot be extended in Newell direction. 4 Explore roof slopes to eliminate building being "boxy" We have explored adding a slope to the roof. Because of the height requirements of the program, any sloped roof that could also work with the PV array would make the building even taller, especially on the park side. We have determined that a flat roof makes the most sense for the installation of solar PV array on the roof. 5 Create a more open and warmer wall on the park side. We have explored different options for creating a more open wall on the park side. One option extends the metal fence found on the east side of the site around to the north and west sides of the parking lot. This creates a transparent view to the parking lot, which would show a view of cars, and mechanical equipment, as well as reduce privacy for the firefighter residents. The second option of a combination of CMU wall with recurring slots/openings. This creates a more appropriate privacy screen for the firefighters, while also providing opportunities for the public to peek in. The CMU also breaks up the wall with its running bond pattern. We would also like to propose additional shrubbery and trees to be planted on the park side to even further warm up and beautify the wall. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7363) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/1/2016 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 799 Embarcadero Road: Fire Station #3 Replacement Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 799 Embarcadero Road (file PLN16-00123): Applicant's Request for Architectural Review Approval of a Two-Story, 6,663 Square Foot Replacement Fire Station Building Located on the Northwest Corner of Embarcadero and Newell Roads Adjacent to the Southeasterly Edge of Rinconada Park on an 18.27 Acre Property. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures). Zoning District: Public Facility (PF) From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct the hearing to receive testimony and provide comments regarding the design, and continue the review to a date uncertain to allow further refinements to the project. Report Summary The City proposes to replace Fire Station #3 located at the corner of Embarcadero Road and Newell Road. The fire station needs upgrades to comply with seismic and ADA requirements and to accommodate larger apparatus (fire trucks). The project is challenged by: the site’s location next to (but outside of) Rinconada Park and across the street from the historic Palo Alto Art Center and single family residences, the street setbacks and busy corner setting along a safe route to school, and the need to protect three trees on the site. The 1948 fire station building is not an historic resource. This finding is reported in the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) and was provided to the Historic Resources Board (HRB). The HRB discussed the site context and proposal at its meeting on November 10, 2016, and expressed City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 concerns with respect to the project’s compatibility with its setting that includes the adjacent Rinconada Park swim center and nearby historic Art Center and Rinconada Library. The HRB’s role is to support staff and the ARB’s effort to determine compatibility of the new building with its surroundings; a member of the HRB was invited to present the HRB’s collective point of view on the site context and proposal to the ARB. The project is subject to Architectural Review findings; draft approval findings are attached to this report (Attachment A); these findings support the proposed project. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: Alan Kawasaki Representative: Public Works, Matt Raschke and PWE Team Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: 799 Embarcadero Road (see location map report Attachment A) Neighborhood: Community Center, Southeasterly edge of Rinconada Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 18.27 acres (450’ of frontage on Newell) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Fire Station is not listed on City or State Historic Inventory, and not eligible for listing on California Register of Historical Resources Special Setback: 24 foot setbacks on Newell and Embarcadero Roads Existing Improvement(s): One-story fire station built in 1948 (see HRE) Existing Land Use(s): Public facilities (Fire Station and Wireless Communication Facility) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Public Facilities (electric substation; tennis courts across the street (Hopkins Avenue) at 1280 Newell Road) West: Public Facilities (Rinconada Park, Walter Hays School) East: Public Facilities (Art Center, 1313 Newell Road) South: R-1 (Single Family Residential) homes (one- and two-story), lots are 80 feet from the front of the fire station site Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public Facilities Comp. Plan Designation: Public Facilities Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Across Embarcadero, approximately 81 feet Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: 2002. City’s consultant (Biggs Cardosa Associates) found that the No. 3 and No. 4 fire stations have "significant seismic deficiencies and potential for instability of soils due to liquefaction." Fire station #3 is one of City's top infrastructure priorities; December 2015. Council awarded a contract to Shah Kawasaki Architects Inc. The Council report City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 enabling this action is found at the following URL: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50127. PTC: None HRB: November 10, 2016. HRB reviewed and discussed the site context for fire station #3 and reviewed the HRE; meeting minutes are attached (Attachment F)Attachment G is provided as a summary. The HRB staff report may be viewed on the City’s website, at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54543. A video of the meeting is available at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s2OiJKO8PU&start=748&width=420&height=315. ARB: June 2, 2016. ARB Conducted a Preliminary Review; considered three options and offered comments. The staff report is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52604 and the meeting minutes are available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52843 Attachment G is provided as a summary to assist the ARB and public Project Description The applicant’s project description is provided as Attachment C to this report. The proposed project plan sets were provided to the ARB and libraries, and available on the City’s webpages at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3570&TargetID=319 The existing one-story, 1948 Fire Station #3 building, located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Embarcadero and Newell Roads, will be demolished and replaced with a code- compliant, two-story, 6,663 square foot (sf) building with a 3,390 sf footprint, with the same number of apparatus bays (two); the apparatus bay doors will be wider and taller, to accommodate today’s fire engines. The existing apparatus bay, which is not deep enough or tall enough to park today’s engines, has two wings (northern and eastern). Project plans sheets A-002, A-121 and A-122 provide floor plans, occupancy and egress diagrams. The tallest part of the building will be 33 feet, five inches above grade (to the parapet), compared to the current building’s height of 15 feet. The firefighters will park their vehicles in the eight space parking lot accessed via the Newell Road driveway, and drive the fire trucks onto the site via the Newell Road driveway. Truck egress will be onto Embarcadero Road. The existing station has five automobile parking spaces and zero bicycle parking spaces; eight bike spaces are proposed. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Existing Cell Tower The existing ‘stealth’ wireless communications facility (WCF) ‘flagpole” is to be removed from the site. A separate Architectural Review application would be required for any new WCF on the site, along with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which would be subject to PTC hearing upon request. The lessee’s long-term lease expired, and they are now on month-to-month lease. The lessee originally indicated they would be vacating the site. The City had reserved the northwest corner for a tower; the location is still shown on the project plans (sheets A-101 through A-103), because the lessee has renewed an interest in replacing the tower. Discussions are underway regarding a lease for the back corner location for a faux redwood tree WCF that could also contribute to meeting the shade requirement for the parking lot, if a faux tree were located in the back corner of the property. Another possible nearby location for the faux tree and equipment is the substation yard on the corner of Hopkins and Newell. Placement on Site Two site sections are provided (on plan sheet A-301) to show the proposed building placement with respect to Embarcadero Road, Rinconada Park and the electric substation, and with the Art Center, Newell Road and Rinconada Park. Plans sheet C1, which shows existing site conditions (and disposition of these features), indicates the existing building is set back about 51 feet from the Embarcadero Road (front) property line and about 25 feet from the Newell Road (side) property line. Plan sheet C2 indicates the proposed building will be 35 feet from the Embarcadero property line and about 27 feet from the Newell property line. The new building, which will be significantly closer to Embarcadero Road and slightly closer to Newell Road, will meet the 24’ special setbacks that exist on both streets. First Floor In addition to the apparatus bays, the first floor will include a shop and areas for medical supplies and cleaning, and an entry, watch-room and restroom. The entry, watch room, restroom and stairway area have vaulted ceilings, 18 feet tall. An elevator, two staircases, and a pole will provide access from the second floor living accommodations. Second Floor City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 A captain’s office, IT room, mechanical room, utility room, and exercise room will supplement the three dorm rooms, two restrooms, and living area (comprised of a kitchen, dining and day room) on the second floor. A second floor terrace off the living area would provide views to the park. Building Finishes and Details The proposed building finishes are terra cotta, painted aluminum metal panels, and a dark anodized aluminum storefront glass system. The terra cotta panels vary between standard and accent (finer groove spacing). A solid wood door is proposed for the main entry. Glass rollup vehicle doors are proposed on both front and rear elevations. The second floor terrace would have a painted metal guardrail to match the aluminum wall panel color. A painted metal sunshade is proposed to extend out three feet from the building above second floor clerestory windows facing south; signage appears in the bottom portion of the metal panels below the clerestory windows. A metal entry canopy extending six feet out from the building is proposed at the Newell Road entry with individual letter signage resting above the canopy to announce the building name and use. Architectural detail pages are keyed on the colored elevations (plan sheets A-201 and -202); the details are found on plan sheets A- 311-312 and A-501-504. Hardscaping and Functional Site Work Driveways and Parking Space Provisions The existing driveway cut on Embarcadero will be narrowed and the driveway at Newell will be widened to 32 feet at the junction with the street, narrowing to a width of 25 feet to access the new parking lot. The gated and walled parking lot will provide eight standard vehicle parking spaces (one with electric vehicle charging capability); this is an increase from the five existing spaces. In addition, one accessible space (with electric vehicle charging capability) is proposed in front of the gate within the special setback on Newell Road. The two driveways and ADA parking space will be surfaced in concrete and the eight standard parking spaces and bike parking area will be surfaced with pervious brick pavers. A total of eight bike parking spaces are proposed (six rack spaces and two locker spaces), where no bike parking spaces currently exist on the site. Pedestrian-Oriented Features Following ARB preliminary review, the sidewalk leading to the pedestrian entry from Newell was significantly widened into a pedestrian plaza. The plaza would provide access to a drinking fountain, a flagpole, a trash receptacle, and two recycled plastic, backed benches. Brick banding is proposed on the plaza steps. The existing monument sign would be relocated on the site, next to a second pedestrian/bicyclist resting area at the corner. Images for these amenities are shown on plan sheet C2.3. Public art is also proposed for the primary plaza; the art content City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 review process is handled by the Public Art Commission. Ornamental iron gates are proposed for pedestrian and vehicle access to the enclosed parking lot. Service Area The service area at the back of the building features a concrete pad supporting an emergency generator, and another concrete are for the roofed recycling and trash enclosure. A six-foot- tall, pre-cast concrete wall would separate the trash enclosure and parking lot from the park. Drainage The City encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped areas and other pervious areas of the site. In addition, the City enforces provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into PAMC Chapter 16.11). As noted, the parking spaces employ permeable paving system to help onsite drainage. The building drainage system has been designed to avoid discharge into the oak protection zones. A bio-swale presenting as a dry streambed surfaced with two inch to four inch cobblestones near the front property line is intended to address provision C.3 storm water treatment requirements. On- and Off-Site Trees and New Trees The Tree Survey Report and Tree Inventory, provided as Attachment H and reprinted on plan sheets L1.2 – L1.4, identifies both on-site and off-site trees. Protected Trees There are three protected trees on the site: Coast Live Oak (#1), located next to the westerly property line near Embarcadero Road, which is 35 feet tall and has a 65’ wide canopy; Redwood (#3), 100 feet tall with a 35’ wide canopy and a trunk located about 45 feet from the property corner; and Coast Live Oak (#5), 45 feet tall with a 60’ wide canopy, with its trunk located about 10 feet from the northerly ‘park dedication line’. These three trees would be preserved with protective fencing installed during demolition and construction activities, and their growing conditions enhanced with wood chips, supplemental water and highly selected pruning. All standard tree protection measures set forth in the City’s Tree Technical Manual would be followed for these trees, including the hand-digging within the tree protection zone (TPZ) near the Redwood tree to implement the dry streambed meeting C3 requirements. In the short term, this installation may slow the Redwood’s growth; however, in the long term, Redwood #3 is expected to benefit from the proposed water collection system. Other On-Site Trees The two other trees on the site are a brush cherry tree (#2) in poor condition and a flowering cherry (#4) in fair condition; these trees will be removed. There are no street trees along the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 site’s frontage and no street trees are proposed with this project. Three multi-trunk accent trees are proposed to be placed approximately ten feet back from the Newell Road sidewalk. The first of these trees would be placed 20 feet from the corner; the second tree is proposed 25 feet north of the first; the third tree, which flanks the plaza with the second tree, is 40 feet farther to the north. A fourth accent tree is proposed on the east side of the Embarcadero driveway. Park Trees Eight existing off-site trees located within Rinconada Park (delineated by the “park dedication line” on plan sheet L2.0) are shown on the tree survey: trees #6-13 include redwood trees #9, 11, and 12. Trees #7-12 would not be removed in conjunction with this project, nor impacted; they are located more than 20 feet from the fire station site. Trees #6 and 13 would be removed in conjunction with this project. Tree #6 is a flowering cherry in ‘fair’ condition, located near Tree #5. Tree #13 is reportedly a 30-foot tall camphor in ‘fair’ condition located near the northwest corner of the site. Images of these trees found in the tree survey are provided below. Tree #6 to be removed Tree #13 to be removed New Park Trees The proposed landscape plan (plan sheet L2) includes four new, medium trees to be planted just outside the fire station site. Although three options for tree species are currently noted on plans (Peppermint tree, Northern Catalpa, and Chinese Pistache), the City’s landscape architect proposes a single, different species (Oklahoma Redbud). These new park trees would be planted in conjunction with the fire station project, in advance of the Rinconada Master Plan implementation. These trees are intended to supplement the other trees that partially screen the fire station site from park views and provide some shade for parked vehicles on the site. Screen Trees to Remain in Park The Rinconada Park trees shown on the tree survey that contribute to screening the existing and proposed fire station site from westerly park views are: A 70-foot tall silver dollar eucalyptus (#7), City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 a 70 foot tall Monterey pine (#8), three redwoods (#9, 11, and 12) ranging in height from 35 to 110 feet tall, and one 60-foot tall incense cedar (#10). The three redwoods have a high suitability for preservation. Two of these trees have a low suitability for preservation due to weakened health (trees #7 and 10), and one tree has moderate suitability for preservation (tree #8). Park Trees with Low Suitability for Retention The below image shows park trees near the fire station that are considered to have “low suitability for preservation”; trees #79-90 located along Newell Road, adjacent to the substation, trees #182 and 184, located just south of the swim center, and a dead cedar (#358). Removal of these trees could allow greater visibility of a new two story fire station nearing the pool facilities, but views from western edge of the park would still be interrupted by trees. Entitlements/Review Process/Findings The following discretionary application is requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Development Director for action within five business days of the ARB’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The draft findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment A. The Council has adopted an ordinance revising the current findings on which architectural review approvals are based. Revised findings will be prepared for the next ARB review of this project. Review and action by Council on this project would only occur if the City received an appeal of the Director’s decision. The site is zoned PF and the fire station use is a permitted use. The application does not require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review. Parks and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Recreation Commission review is also not required, since the building would not encroach into parkland. No plans have been submitted for a temporary fire station but the 2000 Geng Road site has been identified (and authorized by Council on October 17, 2016) as an appropriate temporary location. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The 18.27 acre parcel includes: Rinconada Park (777 Embarcadero Road) and swim center (777 Embarcadero Road) The Rinconada well located at 1340 Hopkins (between the pool and Hopkins Avenue) The Hopkins Electric Substation located at 1350 Newell Road (180’ from FS#3) The Junior Museum and Zoo (at 1451 Middlefield) 1,150-1,180’ to the west The Girl Scout House (at 1120 Hopkins Avenue) over 1,000. Lucie Stern Center (1305 Middlefield, Historic Category 1 Resource), Children’s Library (1276 Harriett Street, Category 1 Resource). Rinconada Park abuts Walter Hays School at 1525 Middlefield Road (see below image). The residential neighborhood across Embarcadero contains one- and two-story homes. There are numerous, mature trees in Rinconada Park between the fire station and Walter Hays School, including heritage oaks shown in the below image. Among these oaks is Palo Alto’s “heritage tree #2”, over 200 years old. These trees interrupt views to buildings across the site. Architectural Style and Compatibility The architectural form and style of the proposed building is contemporary. The building is intended to be compatible with the area architecture, including the one- and two-story 1950’s residential architecture found across Embarcadero Road. Staff has not received input from 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. Girl Scout House Walter Hays School City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 residential owners and tenants of these homes, and has encouraged Public Works staff to consider holding an open house-styled meeting with neighbors to invite their comments on the proposal. The wooded area of the park provides a significant backdrop. The treeless street frontage provides visibility as a foreground for this important new building, as well as superior visibility for exiting emergency vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. As there are no adjacent buildings, there is no transition from the new two-story building to lower height buildings. The mature vegetation in the park on the west and north sides of the site will provide a suitable backdrop and setting for this two-story building. This adjacent vegetation, supplemented by new plantings, will partially screen the new building from the uses west and northwest of the new building. The rendering of the northwest corner of the building (Plan sheet A-903) does not include the proposed tree(s) that would serve to interrupt views of the terra cotta portion of the building from that vantage point. These trees will improve the screening, but will not completely hide the new building from park views. With some modifications following the HRB and ARB’s input, a two story station could fit with Palo Alto's primarily one-story, post-war civic center buildings. The terra cotta finish appreciated as a “nod to the traditional brick firehouse” during the ARB preliminary review was modified in pattern to address ARB comments. A flat roof was selected; however, a non-sloped roof is contrary to the HRB’s preference for roofline compatibility to the art center and single family residences that exist within “the immediate environment” of the site. The HRB recommended the project be modified to meet AR findings 2, 4, 5, and 6. Design Linkages to Art Center/Rinconada The HRB noted appreciation for the general design, which is in the spirit of the mid-century era, as appropriate; the HRB noted the proposal is a contemporary variation of mid-century modern design. The HRB discussion regarding the setting of the proposed replacement station yielded important comments and ideas (summarized in Attachment G). The nearby off-site historic resources that the HRB considers important to the immediate setting include: Rinconada Library (ca 1958), determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3, but not listed on the City’s HRI, and The Art Center (ca 1953), also not listed on the City’s HRI; it was transformed into a visual arts only community facility in 2012, from the Cultural Center use established in 1971 that followed the relocation of City Hall to its current location (and City Hall was the original use of the building). The HRB requests this new, freestanding, box-like building provide more design linkages with the art center and library with more deference to the art center across the street, which has a sloped roof and gabled entrance. While the HRB understood the two story approach, board members asked that the applicant consider a second floor off-set or massing modification to be more compatible, and to provide more windows at the second floor level, such as where the metal panels are currently shown, to help the building appear less “bunker-like” at the corner. The HRB noted that this is a standalone building that does not need to be differentiated from the art center and library, and suggested incorporating the same metal brise-soleil panel used City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 on the award-winning Rinconada Library addition (for which an image is provided below). The HRB also suggested consideration for reorganizing the interior space so non-sleeping areas are placed near Embarcadero (and uses needing more quiet are placed near Newell. The HRB was disappointed not to have the 2002 HRE (prepared by Architectural Resources Group for the Art Center) that the Fire Station project’s historian referenced during the HRB meeting. The HREs prepared in 2002 for the Rinconada Library and Art Center are provided in this report, as Attachment K. The HRE describes the Art Center’s exterior character-defining features as hipped, gabled and gablet roofs, wood-shingled roofs, overhanging eaves, open eaves with fascia boards, exposed rafters, brickwork and projecting brick courses, vertical plank-wood siding, rectangular wood paneling, stone ornamentation, and window banks composed of fixed and awning windows. The 2002 Council report (CMR 272:02) for the Art Center and Rinconada Library expansion (viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/5031) notes that Art Center architect Leslie Nichols, was an architect of demonstrated importance and the original City Hall “demonstrated a radical shift in the design of a civic building from the Grecian or Neo-classical style to the modern, Residentialist style. The building is considered significant as it represents historical and living style shifts in the middle of the 20th century.” Parking Lot Enclosure/Wall The proposed vehicle gate and six-foot, pre-cast concrete wall are important for safety reasons, and are designed with future maintenance considerations. Though the concrete wall was chosen to reference the concrete wall of the Rinconada Library addition, it is inconsistent with other nearby municipal wooden fences found at the swim center and at the Art Center. The concrete wall is continuous in height and alignment, and no vines or shrubs were included on the park side in the landscape plan to mitigate the views of this wall from the picnic area. To improve the design, staff has suggested that the applicant: Revise the planting plan to reflect existing shrubs or add shrubs and/or vines (and there may be existing shrubs already in that location to preserve), and possibly add an additional tree alongside this new wall facing the park, and Recreate a see-through terra cotta wall, similar to the historic wall characteristic of Edward Durrell Stone’s courtyard wall at the Rinconada Library, to screen the fire station parking lot where the wall faces Newell Road and the park. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 Above Image: Metal feature on Rinconada Library addition (at left); Edward Durrell Stone’s signature terra cotta wall around Rinconada Library courtyard (at right) Relationship to Rinconada Park Existing and Future and Historical Context As noted, the HRE prepared for the Fire Station site (Attachment I) found that the existing station is not eligible for listing on the State’s register as a historic resource, and the HRB reviewed this HRE. Though it is located on the larger parcel having listed but distant historic resources, the fire station site is not within dedicated parkland. In addition to linkages with, or deference to, the art center and library, the HRB noted the project would need to sensitively reflect the “come in/don’t come in” aspect of a fire station adjacent to the park and swim center where children are present. Street Trees and Planting Strip Street trees do not occur on the frontage of the fire station site, but they do occur along the Art Center frontage. There is no planting strip between the sidewalk and Newell Road. The planting strip along the fire station site’s Embarcadero Road frontage is surfaced with gravel and contains a utility box. No street trees are proposed along Embarcadero due to visibility needs for fire apparatus and pedestrians, but new plantings of groundcover, shrubs and grasses are proposed east of the driveway curb cut on Embarcadero Road. Planting Plan Revisions City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 The City’s landscape architect reviewed the planting plan submitted October 11, 2016, which lacked specificity as to native species. He has provided suggestions and directed revisions to the planting plan for ARB review. The revised proposal is for Oklahoma redbuds along the perimeter of the site in the park. The on-site vegetation would include accent trees (Marina strawberry tree), Toyon for the large shrubs, and several varieties of medium-sized shrubs, bio- retention grasses and small accent shrubs. Vines are now proposed to soften the six foot tall, pre-cast concrete wall separating the parking lot and Rinconada Park. Exterior Lighting Proposal The project includes the following lighting installations, all with textured bronze finishes: Three LED parking lot lights (pole lights). Four LED Bollard lights; three to illuminate the pedestrian entry plaza, one for the bike rack area. Eight exterior wall sconces with down-directed illumination; four sconces would be located on the front elevation (including over the pedestrian entry door), three are proposed on the back elevation, and one is proposed on the side elevation adjacent to the pedestrian entry door. The photometric plan indicates light spillover beyond the site would be emitted from the northernmost pole light and the two bollard lights that flank the entry plaza. The bollard light spillover is only 1 foot-candle and stops midway across the sidewalk width. The pole light spillover would be interrupted by the new trees planted in the park just outside the northerly edge of the site. The foot-candle measurements for the sconces on the front of the building reach zero lighting at the sidewalk. The sconce paint finish is not specified in the plan set. The ARB may wish to direct the applicant to specify the finish. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with the Public Facilities development standards and all but one of the parking facility standards. The project meets requirements for parking space sizes, drive aisle width, and the provision of 5% landscaping within the parking lot (which for this project is 146 sf of the 45’ x 65’ parking lot) located in the corner of the parking lot (the 20’ x 20’ landscaped area including a pathway, medium shrubs and ground cover). However, this 400 sf area is also shown in plans as the setting for a potential cell tower. Parking Lot Shade The requirement for parking lot shading by tree canopy found in PAMC 18.54.040, item (d) presents a challenge for this project. Tree plantings within surface parking lots are intended to result in a 50% shading of the parking lot within 15 years. Due to the orientation of the site, and given the turning radius required for fire apparatus maneuvering into the apparatus bays, it may not be possible for the project to fully meet the 50% shade requirement within the parking lot in the early afternoon. The two story building will increase shade on the driveway and 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 parking area. Shading of 50% (1,462 sf) of the parking lot by trees could be easier if the cell tower were ‘disguised’ as a faux tree. Another tree could also be planted in the area where the generator is proposed, so that shading of the parking lot could include early afternoon shade. Staff has discussed these potential solutions with the applicant. Plan sheets A-106 through and 108 provide shadow studies, before and after the proposed parking lot reconfiguration and new building construction. The existing perimeter trees provide some shading of the parking lot, in the mornings and afternoons. The proposed two-story building will shade the parking lot more than the existing, one-story building; most dramatically, at the winter solstice at 9 am. The shadow studies do not show the new parking lot perimeter trees proposed within Rinconada Park. The proposed trees, shown planted about seven feet from the edge of the site, will have a limited canopy, spreading up to 20 feet; therefore, they would not provide significant shade for the parking lot. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The draft AR findings reference relevant Comprehensive Plan policies and programs. There are no area plans or guidelines specific to the Community Center area. The policies and findings that reference compatibility are highlighted for discussion. Access, Circulation, Bike Parking The site is located along a Safe Routes to School. Crosswalks are shown meeting City standards, and the project includes an improved pedestrian ramp at the corner, and a pedestrian plaza at the corner which will accommodate multiple pedestrians and bicyclists waiting to cross the street. There are no conflicts in circulation or parking sufficiency; both aspects are improved with the proposed station design. The bike access and storage is an improved condition from the existing station’s facilities. No traffic study was prepared as there is no change in use nor increased demand related to the use. Consistency with Application Findings Draft findings for AR approval are provided as Attachment A to this report. As noted, the Council approved revised AR findings on November 14, 2016. The Findings in effect at the writing of this report included four findings related to compatibility and character: Finding #2: The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; Finding #4: In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; Finding #5: The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; and 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 Finding #6: The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. Finding #4 related to the concept of a project being compatible with a surrounding area that may have a unified or historical character. This finding shares similarities with Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Program L-49, which states, “In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new development to maintain and support the existing character.” The HRB provided comments with respect to the character of the area, and regarding the applicability of the above AR findings to the proposal. Staff’s analysis is provided in the attached draft findings. The ARB may determine that additional modifications to the building are warranted to allow the project to fully meet the AR findings, and the ARB’s input is sought to that end. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, staff determined the project can be considered Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. The Historic Resource Evaluation concluded the existing fire station was not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. The HRE was reviewed by the historic preservation planner and HRB. Circulation and traffic for the replacement station were reviewed by the Transportation Division staff. Staff reviewed other CEQA checklist topic areas and will finalize the document and review findings following the ARB hearing, for the Director’s consideration. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 18, 2016, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 21, 2016, which is 10 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Comments received at the HRB meeting are found in the meeting minutes (Attachment F). Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend the Director approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17 Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: ARB findings (DOC) Attachment B: Minutes of June 2, 2016 Preliminary Review at ARB (DOCX) Attachment C: Applicant's Project Description July 25 (PDF) Attachment D: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC) Attachment E: Comp Plan Policies and Programs (DOC) Attachment F: HRB 11 10 16 meeting excerpt (DOCX) Attachment G: Summary of ARB and HRB Review (DOCX) Attachment H: Arborist Report (PDF) Attachment I: Historic Resource Evaluation (PDF) Attachment J: Initial Study (DOC) Attachment K: 2002 Art Center and Main Library HRE (PDF) Attachment L: Project Plans ARB Only (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “799 Embarcadero” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “January Plans” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7557) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3223 Hanover Street: Office and R&D Building Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER. 3223 Hanover Street [16PLN-00190]: Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of two Existing Office / R&D Buildings and the Construction of a new two-story 110,000 Square Foot Office / R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: RP From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend continuance of the Architectural Review application to a date uncertain and provide recommendations to the applicant for how to better meet the findings for approval. Report Summary The application is a request for major architectural review of a new 114,696 square foot two story office / R&D building with a two-level subterranean parking garage and associated site improvements. The new building would replace two existing office / R&D buildings on the site. The site is located on Hanover Street in the Stanford Research Park and shares a rear lot line with several single family residences along Matadero Avenue. The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Research / Office Park, and is zoned Research Park (RP) with a 50 foot Landscape Combining District (L) along the rear lot line. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is also requested to allow the height of an elevator enclosure and two staircases to exceed the 35 foot height maximum permitted in the Research Park District by 11 feet, for a total height of 46 feet. These elements would allow access to a proposed roof deck located near the portion of the building facing Hanover Street. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Staff recommends that the project be continued to allow for further refinements to the site plan to allow for better bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, and to provide further screening enhancements for the residence to the northeast. Background Project Information Owner: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Bob Giannini, Form4 Architecture Representative: Allison Koo, Steep Slope Property, LLC. Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 3223 Hanover Street (formerly 3251 Hanover Street) Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 10.17 acres (781 feet in width along Hanover Street, 570 feet in depth) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, in existing courtyard between Buildings 204 and 205, and along rear lot line Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): Buildings 204 and 205; 1 story each; c. 1957 Existing Land Use(s): R&D Buildings Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Research Park (Office / R&D Buildings) West: Research Park (Office / R&D Buildings) East: Residential Estate (Single Family Residences) South: Research Park (Office / R&D Buildings) and Residential Estate (Single Family Residences) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Aerial Photograph Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Research Park (RP) with Landscape Combining District (L) along the rear Comp. Plan Designation: Research / Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, single family residences are adjacent to the site Located w/in the Airport Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Influence Area: Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary Review 04/07/2016 (Staff Report and meeting minutes are included at the following link): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51763 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52712 Project Description The site is located on the eastern edge of the Stanford Research Park, across Hanover Street from the HP Campus and adjacent along the rear to four single family homes on Matadero Avenue. Until May 2016 the site constituted the northeastern portion of a larger 25 acre lease area occupied by Lockheed Martin offices and R&D facilities. Hanover Street slopes uphill towards the southwest in the vicinity of the site, and the 25 acre lease area was terraced into three levels containing two groupings of buildings. The lease lines were reconfigured in May 20161, and the 10.17 acre subject site constitutes two of these terraces: an upper terrace containing the existing buildings, and a lower terrace with a surface parking lot and vehicular access to the site. The proposed project would demolish the existing buildings on the site and construct a new 110,000 square foot office building with an additional 5,500 square feet of traffic-mitigating amenity space for a total of 114,696 square feet. The building would consist of two stories, and would be 35 feet in height from grade to the top of the highest roof, 42 feet to the top of the mechanical equipment screen, and 46 feet to the top of the elevator enclosure (with the approval of a Design Enhancement Exception). The building contains a pattern of inverted gables, which the applicant has indicated supports the “Butterfly” theme. Building materials would consist of a glass curtainwall, with frit patterns at the bottom 30 inches of each floor, and aluminum mullions. The canopy fascia and balcony edges would be a metallic blue, and provide the strongest color accent. The canopy soffits and supporting columns would be covered with wood board siding. A color and materials board will be available at the hearing. The existing vehicular entrance would remain, and vehicles would park in a new small surface lot adjacent to the eastern portion of the building, and a two-level subterranean parking garage. The parking garage would be located beneath the higher terrace on the site, and would be covered with a plaza with landscaping, tables, and walkways. The existing surface lot would 1 In conformance with the Subdivision Map Act, commercial lease parcels are not subject to City review. As agreed by Stanford and the City, these lease parcel changes will be tracked through the Mayfield Development Agreement annual reporting process. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 be removed and the area would be hydroseeded to allow a wildflower mix. Most of the existing parking lot trees, which consist predominately of crape myrtles, would be removed, while six London plane trees in the parking lot would be retained. Pedestrians and bicyclists would access the site from two walkways connecting the site to Hanover Street, as well as via a new connection to the Bol Park bicycle path in the northeast corner of the site. The application was previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Board as a preliminary submittal on April 7, 2016. At that time, the Design Enhancement Exception request included a canopy for the proposed roof deck, which has been removed from the formal submittal. Additional discussion focused on the use of the lower parking area, which is proposed to be converted to a meadow. It was mentioned that the project was below the maximum FAR for the 10.17 acre site, and that if another building were to be proposed in the future that the meadow area would be likely be converted back to surface parking. The proximity of the residences along the rear of the site was another topic of discussion, and the Board heard from a neighbor who requested changes to the plan’s grading and landscaping to reduce potential light pollution and noise emanating from the drive aisle, as well as changes to the elevations to reduce light glare from the all-glass building. Finally, the Board commented on the pedestrian and bicycle paths on the site, and requested that the applicant study options for improving connectivity on and to the site, in particular from the Bol Park bicycle path. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Development Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Design Enhancement Exception (DEE): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070, and is equivalent to the process for Architectural Review. However, DEE requests are evaluated against specific findings separate from Architectural Review. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve a DEE request are provided in Attachment B. Analysis2 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is surrounded on three sides by office / R&D buildings, including the HP Campus across Hanover Street, Lockheed Martin facilities to the southwest, and the law offices of Cooley LLP to the northeast. The surrounding buildings range in age, but all consist of contemporary designs with large surface parking lots as is typical in the Research Park. The site abuts four single family residences along the rear, which are physically separated from the site by a linear cluster of coast live oaks, canary island pines, blackwood acacias, and other trees. Owing to this proximity to residential uses, the applicant proposes improvements to further buffer the office use and the potential impacts associated with vehicle noise and glare, including the use of retaining walls and earthen berms along the rear. A concern was raised during the preliminary review of the project regarding the existing drive aisle at the rear of the site, which leads from the lower terrace parking lot to the upper terrace, and how trucks making deliveries in this area would produce excess noise while accelerating up this drive aisle. The preliminary grading plan included with this formal ARB submittal indicates that the proposed grade will be smoothed over the depth of the site, and that the slope of the drive aisle located closest to the residences will be negligible (4 feet in elevation gain over approximately 90 linear feet to access the surface parking lot). Trees will be planted along the drive aisles to provide shading, and in select portions of the rear to provide additional screening. The placement of the building on the upper terrace follows the existing pattern of development on the site, while modifying the plan of the site considerably through the use of subterranean parking garage and a large, open courtyard and plaza. Due to the terraced topography, the scale of the building would be more or less apparent based on the orientation of the view, with the greatest sense of scale from the lower terrace. As viewed from Hanover Street, the scale would be less due to the perpendicular plan for the building and the rising slope at street level. The architecture of the building is contemporary in style and well composed, and would represent a deviation from the boxier massing profiles often seen in the Research Park. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines4 change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 4 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The Comprehensive Plan contains policies, goals, and programs that applicable for office / R&D development in the Research Park. In particular, the following policies are applicable to the project: Policy L-44: Develop the Stanford Research Park as a compact employment center served by a variety of transportation modes. The project redevelops the site with a new office / R&D building and is well served by public transportation. The site would contain more than the minimum number of parking spaces required for the site. Bicyclists and pedestrians would be able to access the site via a connection to the Bol Park bicycle path, as well as walkways connecting the site to the Hanover Street sidewalk. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The building’s architectural design is well composed and creative, and the site planning limits the scale of the building by proposing a perpendicular orientation to the street. The site planning also provides connection to the Bol Park bicycle path, and would be compatible with surrounding development in the Research Park. Additional screening may be necessary to ensure compatibility with the neighboring residential property immediately to the northeast of the site. Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. The project proposes the redevelopment of an existing office / R&D site with a new building, and would be compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. Multi-Modal Access & Parking As mentioned above, pedestrians and bicyclists would access the site from two walkways connecting the site to Hanover Street, as well as the connection to the Bol Park bicycle path. Staff believes that further refinement of the bicycle path connection is needed, and should be better connected with the long term bicycle parking spaces, which are located in the lower level of the parking garage. Additionally, staff believes that an additional pedestrian connection to the relocated VTA bus stops would enhance the transit access to the site. Further comments regarding these recommendations are included in the Findings section below. A transportation analysis was performed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants and reviewed by staff, and concluded that the project would create 9 net new trips during the peak AM and PM hours. This small increase would be due to the shift from the existing facilities, which are a combination of R&D and office uses, to a fully office use. Valley Transportation Authority, AC Transit, and the Stanford Marguerite Shuttle provide bus transportation in the immediate vicinity of the of the site, with an eastbound bus stop located along the site frontage and a westbound bus stop located directly across Hanover Street. The City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 applicant would install a new pedestrian crosswalk to provide access to the westbound stop, which will be relocated to a more advantageous location to serve the project and other buildings in the vicinity. Consistency with Application Findings Architectural Review The findings for approval of an architectural review application are included in Attachment D. Staff believes that the findings for approval can be made with minor but important plan refinements needed to fully meet Findings #2 and #4. ARB Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. While new landscaping and additional trees are proposed throughout the site, staff is concerned that the existing cluster of trees along the rear of the site may not provide a sufficient screen for the residence located adjacent to the northeast corner of the site. City records indicate that this residence is located approximately 10 feet from the property line, and while this portion of the property is situated away from the office building, the close proximity of the residence to the proposed bike path connection could introduce privacy concerns without sufficient landscaping. Additionally, no privacy fence exists along this portion of the rear of the site. Given the proximity of this residence to the site and proposed bicycle path, it is recommended that the ARB provide recommendations for better screening this portion of the property. Additionally, most of the trees currently located in the surface parking lot are proposed for removal. It is understood that approximately 67,000 square feet of FAR would be remain undeveloped on the site with the current proposal, and that this area could eventually host a second structure. However, as there is no application to develop this portion of the site, staff believes that more of the trees in the parking lot could be retained. ARB Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The proposed connection to Bol Park bike path is a positive attribute to the overall plan for the site, however, it terminates at the drive aisle curb and does not provide for an easy or convenient path of travel to the building for pedestrians and bicyclists. A condition of approval would normally be recommended to address this issue by reorienting the path to run between the new wall along the rear and the drive aisle to connect with the hardscape adjacent to the building, however, this area is proposed to provide trees necessary to meet parking lot and drive aisle shading requirements, as well as to provide additional screening for the adjacent residences. Additionally, the long term bicycle parking is provided in the lower level of the parking garage, which is served by the entrance closest to Hanover Street. Staff is supportive of placing the long term spaces in the garage, but believes an additional dedicated pathway leading to the garage entrance would increase bicyclist safety along the vehicle drive aisle. . Additionally, while the new proposed VTA bus stops on either side of Hanover Street would improve the usability of the site, the pedestrian route from the stops to the building entrance is circuitous. It is recommended that the ARB provide direction regarding additional pedestrian connectivity to the bus stops. Design Enhancement Exception The findings for the approval of a Design Enhancement Exception are included in Attachment C. The preliminary review of the project included the request for a design enhancement exception to allow a shade structure, elevator enclosure, and staircases on the roof that would exceed the 35 foot height limit in the RP Zoning District. The shade structure has been removed from the project, however, the request for the elevator enclosure and staircases remains a component of the current application. These elements would be necessary to provide access to the applicant’s proposed roof deck, to be situated on the western side of the building facing Hanover Street. The stair enclosures are depicted in the building elevations as having a height no greater than the 42 foot-high mechanical equipment screen, which is permitted to exceed the 35 foot height limit. The maximum height of the elevator is proposed at 46 feet, which would be four feet taller than the mechanical screen. Staff believes that the elements would blend in visually with the existing mechanical screen and would not detract from the appearance of the building. Additionally, the location of the roof deck, which would be enabled by the stair and elevator enclosures, would not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare and convenience of the surrounding area, as it is located away from the neighboring residences and towards the site frontage. Given this, staff believes that Finding #3 for the approval of a DEE can be made. However, staff does not believe that Findings #1 and #2 can be made to support an exception, as there are no “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district”. As this is a new building to be situated on a greatly improved site, there do not appear to be extraordinary circumstances to permit a height exception. Additionally, it does not appear that permitting the height exception 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d)”. As the current design already includes several canopied second floor decks, it does not appear as though the inclusion of an uncovered roof deck would contribute to the architectural design of the project. Further details would be needed to assess the potential impacts to the adjacent residences stemming from the use of the roof deck. Staff believes that the DEE request enhances the use of the site, but is not consistent with the intent of the DEE provisions in the Municipal Code. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. An Initial Study is being prepared and it is expected that a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated within the next few weeks. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 6, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 9, 2017, which is [10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report no public comments have been received on the formal submittal of this application. A letter was written for the preliminary review of this application, and has been included in Attachment F. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (PDF) Attachment C: Findings for Approval (DOCX) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Attachment D: Zoning Comparision Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment F: Public Comments (PDF) 17 321.7' 186.3' 268.5' 91.7' 498.5' 340.8' 47.9' 145.0' 53.0' 69.7' 44.0' 167.2' 335.6' 321.2' 165.0' 194.6' 208.7' 120.0' 85.0' 120.0' 64.0' 41.9' 69.4' 141.6' 101.5' 494.7' 459.7' 91.9' 209.0' .3' 183.7' 17.8' 50.8' 17.8' 493.8' 120.0' 107.4' 94.0' 51.1' 39.0' 90.0' 85.0' 120.0' 85.0' 120.0' 94.0' 28.0' 45.4' 63.7' 31.4' 49.2' 106.3' 51.1' 106.3' 29.3' 13 90.0' 43.4' 52.3' 31.4' 85.9' 55.8' 113.0'55.0' 113.3' 391.8' 309.7' 55.0' 570.1' 221.4' 147.8' 30.1' 30.1' 30.2' 30.2' 30.3' 30.3' 30.4' 224.7' 408.8' 106.2 408.8' 106.2 155.4 119.8' 119.8' 136.5' 235.0' 35.8' 144.5' 185.3' 35.8' 185.3' 215.0' 14.3' 283.5' 129.9' 139.3' 35.8' 192.7' 286.3' 17.8' 25.4' 91.3' 90.0' 14.3' 220.2' 129.9' 207.4' 85.3' 29.9' 29.9' 29.8' 29.8' 29.7' 14.7' 14.9' 29.6' 1080.3' 101.5' 147.8' 30.1' 15.2' 15.0' 30.3' 30.3' 30.4' 29.6' 29.7' 29.7' 29.8' 29.8' 29.9' 29.9' 85.3' 308.1' 44.0' 69.7' 53.0' 145.0' 47.9' 269.7' 87.4' 357.0' 398.5' 357.0' 399.1' 590.3' 274.6' 628.9' 383.3' 329.5' 109.8' 273.6' 149.3' 138.4' 109.4'63.6' 217.8' 96.1' 308.1' 304.4' 590.3' 1804.8' 570.1' 1660.0' 200.0' 188.7' 200.0' 188.7' 300.6' 208.6' 160.0' 85.3' 61.4' 183.1' 172.1' 194.5' 231.2' 18.0' 403.2' 212.5' 231.2' 194.5' 231.2' 194.5' 165.0' 207.7' 164.9' 207.4' 25.4'17.8' 183.7' 210.7' 165.0' 320.3' 20.0' 200.0' 188.7' 208.6' 208.7' 408.7' 170.6' 246.2' 88.6' 91.3' 280.0' 164.9' 33.0' 150.0' 100.0' 180.4' 229.2' 165.0'96.8' 150.3'100.0' 150.0'100.0'409.2' 106.3 409.2' 106.3 160.0' 273.0' 160.0' 85.3' 61.4' 20.0' 61.4' 88.6' 246.2' 1479.9' 1194.4' 844.9' 396.6' 1479.9' 203.1' 30.0' 203.2' 30.0' 391.8' 80.0' 113.0' 112 .0' 55.0'55.0' 55.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0' 110.0' 110.0' 54.4'108.0' 38.6' 38.6' 60.7' 80.3'80.3' 53.2' 53.2' 118.6' 75.4' 80.0'80.0' 125.0' 93.2' 93.2' 101.4' 155.5' 55.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 55.0' 56.0' 74.4' 74.4' 50.0' 50.0' 104.0' 104.0' 50.0' 50.0'55.0' 55.0'55.0' 55.0' 84.4' 113.0'113.0' 56.0'117.0'117.0'45.4' 22.7' 22.2' 51.4' 113.5'113.5' 55.3' 88.6' 109.6'109.6' 109.7'109.7' 109.8' 109.8' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0'109.6' 109.6' 109.6'109.6' 60.0' 60.0' 118.8' 32.7' 139.7' 125.0' 187.6' 230.8' 96.1'167.2' 198.1' 212.6' 195.5' 226.8' 51.8'51.8' 51.8 330.8'277.4' 180.7'218.5' 185.0' 218.5' 217.8'155.0' 172.8' 172.8' 171.0' 208.4' 208.4' 200.0' 200.0' 175.0' 100.0' 188.1' 188.1' 218.5' 218.5' 403.2' 255.4' 3 3251 3200 31903180 3000 914 875 35203510 7 764 770 800 820 830 840 850 846 827 835 85 855 856 861 862 871878 860 876 890 8 8 0 8 82 88 4 8 86 910 906 9 0 4 979 995 3 5 0 7 3 5 0 5 3 5 0 3 954 975 973 912 918 922 935 945 969 959 970 980 999 960 950 940 957 951 928 930 940 955 953 941 852 3201 3251 3305 3175 3509 9 5 1 937 926 831 HANOVER STREET HANOVER STREET HILLVIEW AVENUE HANOVER STREET CHIMALUS DRIVE MATAD MATADERO AVENUE LA MATA W MATADERO AVENUE L A GU NA AVEN UE MATADER O CT COURT ROBLE RI DG E This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Legend abc Easement 3223 Hanover (Project Site - 10.17 ac) 0'300' 3223 Hanover Street Project Site Area Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2017 City of Palo Alto 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r, P a l o A l t o Project Narrative - Formal ARB Review June 1, 2016 (updated August 15, 2016) To: City of Palo Alto Planning Division Architectural Review Board Members From: From4 Architecture - Applicant Robert Giannini, Architect Subject: 3251 Hanover, Palo Alto Formal Architectural Review Board Review Thank you for your preliminary review of this proposed project on April 7, 2016 located on Hanover Street in Palo Alto on a site currently occupied by Lockheed. Building FAR: Currently there are two occupied office/R&D buildings on the site with an FAR of +/- 110,000 sf. This is well below the allowable 0.4 FAR of 177,202 sf per the existing RP zone. This application seeks a stand-alone approval for one new office/R&D building of 110,000 sf floor area to replace the existing buildings. This will be a one for one replacement on the same size and same use of buildings. Parking: This application includes a 2 level below grade parking structure. Together with surface parking, 1/300 sf parking on FAR is proposed. Space for potential additional parking is provided as “parking reserve.” This may be constructed at the Owner’s discretion should the need arise to help assure that all parking be contained on site. The existing, aging, surface parking on the lower tier of the site will be removed as part of this project so that the site is not over parked and remains in Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 2 Palo Alto, California June 1, 2016 compliance with the City parking code. Applicant reserves the right to reuse this area as part of any future potential project that, of course, would be subject to City approval. P R O J E C T D A T A Description of Amenity Space Allowance: This application is for a shell building however the type of user that will lease this building generally includes amenity features in the interior design such as fitness and cafeteria. A conservative area for this sort of approved amenity space is 5% of the total area which is what is included in the data above. The owner commits that, while the location is undetermined at this time, no less than 5% of the area will be amenity space; if not constructed by the tenant it will be constructed by the owner. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 1 0 5 0 P A G E M I L L R O A D - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 3 Palo Alto, California June 1, 2014 Architectural Design Narrative “A Kaleidoscope of Butterflies” We thank the ARB again for its comments at our Preliminary ARB Hearing. Following are the items that were requested to be studied in greater detail: 1.Site Circulation, Wayfinding & Arrival 2.Sustainability - Bird Friendly Glass 3.Existing Trees and their use 4.Neighbor Concerns 5.Design Detail Master Planning & Architecture Site Circulation, Wayfinding & Arrival: To work in harmony with natural grades, the site is proposed to be organized in much the way it is used today where the building is located on the upper terrace. The new garage is proposed to be buried in the hill. Arrival by public transportation, bicycle, or foot: One would arrive at the upper terrace where the public sidewalk is flush with the natural grade - this spot is the centerline of our proposed pedestrian courtyard. From there one may walk to the main lobby entry at the center of the building. Short term bike parking is at the door. Long term parking is around the side in the landscape area between the building and the residential property to the southeast where there is also an immediate entry into the building. Please see circulation diagram in the plan set, Sheet MP 1.3. Arrival by car: Enter at the driveway on Hanover located at the lower terrace. Garage entries are immediately apparent, marked by canopies that are consistent with the butterfly theme of this project. Turn immediately into the lower level of the garage, or continue on to enter the upper level of the garage. Continuing on your are directed by a low landscape wall to the upper terrace drop off. Please see entire entry sequence shown on Sheets MP 2.3 through 2.6. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 4 Palo Alto, California June 1, 2016 Deliveries and Trash: Trash is proposed to be located at the Hanover entry to avoid the noise of trucks driving to the upper terrace. Deliveries would by Fed Ex or the like, and they would be able to drive to the upper terrace drop off. Note that grades have been made more gradual by this entry drive / garage configuration. 90 degree corners have been eliminated as well, all to help reduce the sound of cars or trucks that may proceed to the upper terrace in deference to our residential neighbors. Sustainability & Glass: The butterfly roofs on this project effectively shade the glass skin as shown on the sun studies provided on Sheet A 4.3.. Where the sun is lower in the west, vertical glass fins have been added. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 1 0 5 0 P A G E M I L L R O A D - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 5 Palo Alto, California June 1, 2014 The combination of high efficiency low emissivity clear glass and almost complete shading of the skin provide a highly efficient envelope which leads to lower energy use. Please see Sheet A 4.3. Daylighting: The roofs are one of the most distinctive features of the design. They were created to allow well-balanced natural daylight through clearstories. Clearstory lighting is appealing because you can see the sky comfortably as you walk through the space as opposed to skylights, you can control light better than with skylights, and because the natural day lighting they provide reduces the need for artificial light which all leads to lower energy use. The imagery also harkens back to some of the sawtooth roof designs that were common in the park in early day lit buildings. Bird Friendly Glass: The building’s glazing is broken up to avoid large glazed facades where possible. Fritted glass sun shade elements have also been added to help mitigate the issue. The most dangerous configuration for birds are buildings that funnel them to a large glass wall. That geometry does not exist on this project. Existing Trees & Their Use: There are several mature and important trees on the site; primarily located in the front 50’ Landscape Setback. They will be protected and remain as is. One significant oak is back from that setback on site as shown on the diagram to the right. The master plan was designed around it, and there is adequate clearance between it and the proposed garage. The tree will become the centerpiece of the central courtyard - a gathering place with presence - “meet you at the big Oak.” Sensitivity to Neighbors: The site has a public street to the west, and a residential neighborhood, Barron Park, to the east. Our design team has had several meetings with the neighbors so that we may better understand their concerns. We have visited several of the homes that are most affected. •On the east side facing residential, the nearest point of the building has been set back 90’. •In addition the building geometry was rotated 45 degrees so it never faces the residences broadside… the 90’ dimension is at one point, and the majority of the building recedes from there to an even greater setback. •On that short, end elevation, spandrel glass will be used in the lower 30” of the windows to help reduce floor to ceiling glass and the amount of light. •More dramatic measures have also been taken to help reduce noise and light spill. Lights have been selected so that foot candle readings at the property line are zero (see sheet LD 2.0 Photometrics). •Berms have been added to screen headlights and noise. •Berms will also be carried through to the lower tier of the site (former parking area) to buffer the neighbors adjacent to that portion of the site. •The amount of surface parking at the upper terrace is very small. •Finally extensive landscaping including hedges that will go in +/- 8 to 10’ tall will completely block views and protect privacy. •Please see sheets A 1.2 through 1.4 for photos, site sections and diagrams. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 6 Palo Alto, California June 1, 2016 It is also fortunate that a portion of the existing buildings are at 33’ tall (see sheet MP 1.4); just 2’ lower than the highest point of the project’s butterfly roofs. Existing mature landscaping in the buffer between sites already blocks views of the existing building’s roof as demonstrated by the picture below taken from a neighbor’s home. That tallest portion of the existing building is completely obscured by existing landscaping. View from neighbor property toward existing 33’ tall building on site Design Detail: Attention has been paid to the project’s details. On a more global scale the theme of “A Kaleidoscope of Butterflies,” has been carried through all aspects of the project starting with arrival and entry into the garage; repeated in the parasol structure that protects the stair and elevator coming up from the garage, to the entry canopy at the lobby and large flying sunshade on Hanover. The goal is to create a poetic, crystalline and lyrical statement; like butterflies alighting on the hill. The package includes several perspectives of the project to demonstrate how materials come together. … and Finally the DEE At the preliminary ARB hearing it was clear that a DEE would not be granted for the proposed roof deck shade structure, and that element has been eliminated. We would like to preserve the opportunity to have a roof deck, however, if desired by the project’s tenants. That can only be a reality if we can provide a stair and elevator to the roof. Those elements are not exempt from the height limit (as is the mechanical screen or elevator overrun) so the only option is a DEE, and that is our request. To be more specific, we would like the option to construct a roof deck if requested by our future tenant (unknown at this time), and that will require the ability to add a stair and elevator to the roof. Please see Sheet A 4.4 for their proposed locations. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 1 0 5 0 P A G E M I L L R O A D - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 7 Palo Alto, California June 1, 2014 •The elevator and one stair is buried in the center of the building between mechanical equipment screens. •The stair closest to the deck, proposed only to be on the Hanover end of the building, will also become part of the roof screen. Thank you for your consideration of this item. Thanks very much for your attention and review of the various design aspects of this project! Robert Giannini, Form4 Architecture Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3223 Hanover Street 16PLN-00190 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION (DEE) FINDINGS In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval for a design enhancement exception, the project must comply with the following Findings for a Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76.050 of the PAMC. Finding #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; Finding #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); and Finding #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. ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLES 3223 Hanover Street 16PLN-00190 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 Research Park (RP) District Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 1 acre 10.17 acres (previously 25.938 acres) 10.17 acres Min. Front Setback 50 feet special setback along Hanover Street 86 feet to Buildings 204 and 205 50 feet Rear Yard Setback 20 feet (50 foot Landscape Combining District along the rear establishes de-facto setback on the site) 139 feet to Building 205; 144 feet to Building 204; 98 feet to rear building 90 feet Min. Side Setback 20 feet 308 feet to northeast; 64 feet to southwest 447 feet to northeast; 73 feet to southwest Min. yard for site lines abutting or opposite residential districts 20 feet 139 feet to Building 205; 144 feet to Building 204; 98 feet to rear building 90 feet Max. Site Coverage 30% (132,901 sf) 25% (111,384 sf) 12% (55,000 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.4:1 (177,202 sf) 0.25:1 (111,384 sf) 0.25:1 (109,696 sf + 5,500 sf amenity space) Max. Building Height 35 feet (with additional 15 feet for mechanical and screen) 33 feet 35 feet (46 feet with DEE) Daylight Plane N/A N/A N/A (4) See subsection 18.20.040(e) below for exceptions to height and floor area limitations in the ROLM and RP zoning districts. (5) Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Administrative Office and Research & Development uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/300 sf of gross floor area for a total of 367 parking spaces N/A 381 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/3,000 sf (80% long term and 20% short term) equals 37 spaces N/A 37 bike spaces (30 long term and 7 short term) Loading Space 2 loading spaces for 100,000-199,000 sf or greater N/A 2 spaces * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3251 Hanover Street” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Project Plans” Matadero Avenue Families Group c/o Palmer 922 Matadero Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 March 20, 2016 Alison Koo Project Manger Sand Hill Property Company Dear Ms. Koo, Thank you for holding the neighborhood meeting in January to describe your development plans to the homeowners living near your property at 3251 Hanover, and to solicit our feedback. Lockheed Martin, the previous leaseholder of the property, had a good history of conferring with the neighbors and we’re glad you are continuing that tradition. The meeting was well attended; from the neighborhood we had approximately 10 families represented from both sides of Matadero Avenue, near to your property. At the meeting, the neighbors described concerns we have about your initial plans for the property, and we discussed several possible solutions. Your architect, Bob Giannini, said he would “take a look at” these and other solutions to our concerns. However, we haven’t heard back from you, so we thought we would outline these concerns and possible solutions in a letter, and ask for your thoughts on them. Concern 1: Our first concern was that all the traffic from the lower part of your property to the upper part of your property would be routed via a driveway ramp that is very close to the residential neighborhood. The ramp is marked as #1 on Figure 1. In the past when Lockheed leased the property, we experienced significant car and delivery truck noise from this ramp. We asked you and Mr. Giannini if there was an alternate path to get traffic to the drop-off area in front of the buildings. We suggested several possible solutions: 1) A second entrance from the street marked as #2 in Figure 1. This would eliminate the need for the ramp at #1. 2) A ramp further from the residential neighborhood, marked as #3 in Figure 2. 3) A ramp further from the residential neighborhood, marked as #4 in Figure 3. This ramp is diagonal to reduce its slope, if necessary. 4) An earthen berm, marked as #5 in Figure 4. The SW end of this berm could start at grade level of the upper part of the property, and naturally continue at this grade level to the NE, until sloping down near the NE corner of the property. Note that at the property line near #5, the residences are currently level with the lower parking lot (“Landscape area”). This berm would also serve to block views and noise from cars currently level with the residences. Of course, any of the above means to replace the ramp could be combined with the earthen berm implementation, to maximize the noise reduction to the residences. Could you give us your thoughts on these ways to address our concern about the proximity of traffic? We would be pleased to give feedback on any other solutions you can think of. Concern 2: The second concern was light pollution from the all-glass facades of the buildings at night. The new buildings will be level with the second-floor bedrooms of several homes on the other side of the property line, as marked at #6 in Figure 5. You said you were expecting a tech industry tenant, and such companies often work late into the night. Shielding with trees was discussed as one solution; but this is not currently effective with the outdoor security lighting you have operating on the buildings now. Reducing outdoor lighting on the residential side of the building would be more effective, but a more complete solution to reduce light pollution would involve changing the building façade. We fear that the tall, all-glass design you propose is not well-suited to coexistence with a nearby residential neighborhood. Could you give us your thoughts on this issue, as well? Finally, one household from our group, Michael and Jessica Palmer, would like to invite you, your colleagues at Sand Hill Property Company, and your architects, to visit their home at 922 Matadero Ave., to get a view of your property from the other side of the fence. Lockheed Martin accepted a similar invitation when they were remodeling their property further up the hill on Hanover, and you would be very welcome to come over for a visit as well. Sincerely, Your neighbors on Matadero Ave. Figure 1: Original architect’s drawing, with numberings added. The traffic access ramp is at #1. An alternative entrance from the street is at #2, which would eliminate the need for the ramp at #1. (Residences are figurative.) Figure 2. Modified drawing with alternative ramp at #3, further from the residences. (Residences are figurative.) Figure 3. Modified drawing with alternative ramp at #4, further from the residences. This ramp is diagonal in order to reduce its slope, if necessary. (Residences are figurative.) Figure 4. Modified drawing with earthen berm at #5. The SW end of this berm could start at grade level of the upper part of the property, and naturally continue at this grade level to the NE, until sloping down near the NE corner of the property. Note that at the property line near #5, the residences are currently level with the lower parking lot (“Landscape area”). This berm would also serve to block views and noise from cars currently level with the residences. (Residences are figurative.) Figure 5. Concerns about light emission at #6. The new buildings will be level with the second-floor bedrooms of several homes on the other side of the property line at #6. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7612) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3181 Porter Drive: New Office Building Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3181 Porter Drive [16PLN- 00209]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Three Existing Office / R&D buildings at 3181, 3221, and 3215 Porter Drive and Construction of a new two-story 101,083 Square Foot Office Building on the site. This Project is a Designated Project Under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: RP. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend continuance of the proposed project to a date uncertain. Report Summary The application is a request for architectural review of a new 101,083 square foot two story office / R&D building with a one-level subterranean parking garage and associated site improvements on a 4.5 acre portion of the site. The new building would replace three existing office / R&D buildings on the site. The site is located at the junction of Porter Drive and Hanover Street in the Stanford Research Park, and has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Research / Office Park and is zoned Research Park (RP) District. The project is a designated project subject to the Mayfield Development Agreement, which allows for an increase in the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) on the site from 0.4:1 to 0.5:1. The remaining 1.67 acre portion of the site would remain vacant. Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Smith Group, JJR Representative: Helena Cipres-Palacin Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 3181, 3221, and 3225 Porter Drive Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 6.2 acres (3181 Porter Drive, 4.503 acres; 3215 Porter Drive, 1.67 acres) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: Yes Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, along site perimeter Historic Resource(s): No, based on historic resource evaluation Existing Improvement(s): 3181 Porter Drive; 1 story; c. 1963 3215 Porter Drive; 1 story; c. 1966 3221 Porter Drive; 1 story; c. 1961 Existing Land Use(s): Office / R&D Buildings Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Public Facilities (PF) District (Transformer Station) West: Research Park (RP) District (Stanford School of Medicine) East: Research Park (RP) District (Ford Motor Company offices) South: Research Park (RP) District (Jazz Pharaceuticals, Skype, Lockheed Martin offices) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Aerial Photograph Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Research Park (RP) Comp. Plan Designation: Research / Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed project would demolish the three existing buildings on the site and construct a new two-story office building with one level of subterranean parking and associated site improvements. Until July 2016, the site encompassed three distinct lease parcels (3181, 3221, and 3215 Porter Drive), each with separate structures and access. The lease lines across the site have since been realigned and the site now constitutes two lease parcels (3181 and 3215 Porter Drive)1. The new office building is proposed at 3181 Porter Drive, which constitutes 4.503 acres of the full 6.2 acre site. Most structures at the remaining 1.671 acre lease area at 3215 Porter Drive would be demolished, with the exception of the existing groundwater extraction and treatment system located in the northwest corner of the lease area (See Environmental Management section for more details). The proposed building would constitute 98,083 square feet of gross floor area, plus an additional 3,000 square feet of amenity space, for a total of 101,083.79 square feet. A building tenant has not been selected at this time, but the applicant has indicated that the amenity space would likely be occupied with a gymnasium, food service, or recreation area. The building would consist of two stories, and would be 34 feet in height to the top of the parapet and 40 feet to the top of the mechanical screen on the roof. Mayfield Development Agreement In 2005, the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University entered into the Mayfield Development Agreement (MDA). Under the terms of the MDA, Stanford University was to lease to the City of Palo Alto the 6-acre Mayfield site, located at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, for $1 per year for 51 years. Stanford was to construct soccer fields on the Mayfield site at its expense and turn the fields over to the City upon completion, which was done in 2006. In turn, the MDA provided Stanford with vested rights to build 250 housing units on two sites in the Stanford Research Park, where R&D/office buildings exist. These homes have now been approved and are currently under construction. Stanford was also granted the right to relocate 300,000 sf of R&D/office space elsewhere in the Stanford Research Park, which is less than the amount of commercial area to be demolished at the two designated housing sites. 1 In conformance with the Subdivision Map Act, commercial lease parcels are not subject to City review. As agreed by Stanford and the City, these lease parcel changes will be tracked through the Mayfield Development Agreement annual reporting process. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 As shown in the attached designation letter (Attachment D), Stanford has designated 29,000 sf of this Mayfield square footage for use on the subject site. Overall, Stanford has designated 262,907 sf to sites throughout the Research Park Area, leaving an additional 37,093 sf for future allocation. Additional information regarding the MDA and associated Environmental Impact Report are located on the City’s website at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/mayfield.asp Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis2 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is surrounded on all sides by office / R&D buildings, including the Stanford School of Medicine, corporate offices, and lab spaces. The City of Palo Alto’s Hanover substation is located directly northeast of the site. Existing mature landscaping along the Porter frontage of the site presents a visually cohesive landscape, with a large live oak and several groves of canary island pines framing the streetscape. As noted on Sheet L7.1, the live oak, as well as the large canary island pine groves, would be retained with the development. Non- protected trees currently occupying the interstitial space between the former lease areas would be removed to accommodate the new building and site improvements. The placement and massing of the building is representative for the Research Park context. The building follows an L-shaped plan, with the longest façade facing the Porter Drive frontage. Exterior cladding materials would consist of vertically-troweled concrete, imitation wood wall and soffit paneling, and zinc metal and fascia paneling. Horizontally-applied louvers on the second story balconies and skylights, as well as horizontal soffit panels, help reduce the vertical scale of the building. The mixture of materials presents a distinctive style that is appropriate for the setting and vicinity. While the selection of architectural materials distinguishes the 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 proposed building from the varying styles of the surrounding buildings, the proposed building would compatible with its surroundings. The eastern façade fronting Porter Drive is somewhat wider than the street-facing facades of the surrounding buildings, but the visual impact of this width this minimal due to the building articulation. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment E. The plans currently show three parking spaces located within the special setback along Porter Drive, and these spaces will need to be shifted elsewhere on the site to comply with the special setback requirements. With this exception, the project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Multi-Modal Access & Parking A transportation analysis for the site was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants on behalf of the City to describe existing and generated traffic volumes, as well as site ingress/egress and multi-modal access. The analysis concluded that the project would generate an 11 percent increase in traffic on Porter Drive during the AM peak hour and an 8 percent increase during the PM peak hour. However, the existing volume on Porter Drive is well below capacity, and the project would not create a significant increase with the newly generated trips. Left-turn queueing along Porter Drive was also analyzed, and it was determined that the existing left-turn lane serving the site provides adequate storage for vehicles exiting the site. A recently-installed pedestrian cross walk located adjacent to the proposed drive entrance would conflict with the southbound vehicles entering the site, and it is recommended that this cross walk be relocated to its original location fronting the 2165 Porter Drive bus stop, approximately 160 feet to the north of the current location. This recommendation in included in the Conditions of Approval for the project. The site is within 150 feet of three bus stops, at Hanover Street & Hillview Avenue, Porter Drive at Hillview Avenue, and at 3165 Porter Drive. Valley Transit Authority (VTA) and the Stanford Marguerite Shuttle provide local and express service within the immediate vicinity of the site, while Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) provides East Bay connections with the Dumbarton Express line. The project plans include the installation of a new sidewalk along the project frontage, which will improve pedestrian access to the site and surrounding buildings. To further improve pedestrian access from the building to the bus stop at 3165 Porter Drive, staff recommends the inclusion of a walkway extending south from the western edge of the building to the newly installed sidewalk. Bicycle lanes are present on either side of Porter Drive in the vicinity of the site, and the reduction in the number of driveways serving the site will improve bicycle safety. The project includes 28 long term bicycle parking spaces, located on the northern side of the 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 building and in the parking garage. Short-term bicycle racks are also included on the northern side of the building and in the visitor plaza. The number of short term and long term spaces proposed on the site slightly exceeds the code requirement, and the spaces have been suitably placed. The plans include the required 327 vehicle parking stalls, including 251 stalls located in the subterranean one-level parking garage, as well as the one required loading space. At-grade surface parking would be located above the garage, which would be located behind the building and out of view from most of the site frontage. The surface parking and drive aisles would be shaded with trees, which at maturity would provide over 50% shade cover. Consistency with Application Findings, Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines, and The findings for approval of an Architectural Review application are also included in Attachment B. The Comprehensive Plan contains policies, goals, and programs that applicable for office / R&D development in the Research Park. The applicable policies are listed below: Policy L-44: Develop the Stanford Research Park as a compact employment center served by a variety of transportation modes. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is a designated project subject to the provisions of the Mayfield Development Agreement and the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report, which contains mitigation measures applicable for all designated projects, including the subject site. These measures include requirements for mitigating potentially significant impacts to cultural resources, traffic, air quality, biological resources, and public health concerns regarding hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and soil and groundwater contamination. Impacts to cultural resources are continuing to be reviewed by staff and consultants as further discussed below. After the HRE is complete, staff will determine the appropriate level of environmental review, it is anticipated that an addendum to the Mayfield EIR will be prepared. Historic Resources The subject site contains three buildings constructed during the 1960s, and as a result, CEQA requires that the structures be evaluated for historical significance. The applicant has provided City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 a Historic Resource Evaluation, which has been reviewed by City staff and consultants. The City is now performing additional research to complete the report, which staff anticipates will be finalized by the end of January. On-Site Environmental Management The site is located within the Hillview Porter Regional Groundwater Plume and is under two Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) orders for oversight and remediation. Additionally, the former 3181 and 3221 Porter Drive lease areas are under a third DTSC order for the Teledyne groundwater plume associated with the adjacent 3165 Porter Drive site. Subsurface characterization on the site began in 1987, and groundwater remediation efforts have been ongoing at the site since 1993. In accordance with the Mayfield Development Agreement MMRP, the applicant has provided environmental management plan documents, including a soil and soil vapor sampling report that describes the subsurface conditions and associated considerations for the redevelopment of the site. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in soil vapor samples analyzed in 2016 exceeded residential and commercial screening levels, and a vapor intrusion evaluation and site management plan have been prepared for review by DTSC. Work to consolidate the two existing groundwater extraction and treatment systems has begun on the site in preparation for the redevelopment, as required by DTSC. Below grade, new piping, well vaults, and associated pull boxes will be installed. Above grade, the southern groundwater pumping enclosure and associated equipment would be removed, while the northern enclosure would remain and serve as the control center for the reconfigured system. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 6, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 9, 2017 which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue to a date certain 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment D: Notice of Mayfield Designation (PDF) Attachment E: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC) Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment C: Findings for Approval (DOCX) Attachment B: Lease Line Description (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 142-18-035 142-18-034 142-18-011 142-18-018 142-18-047 142-18-036 142-18-016 142-18-046 142-18-014 142-18-013 142-17-037 Hewlett Packard Foothill Club G University Club F 20-082E20-082A 20-082B HANOVER STREET HANOVER STREET HILLVIEW AVENUE HILLVIEW AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD PORTER DRIVE PORTER DRIVE PORTER DRIVE D SROAD Matadero Creek PF RP(L) RP This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge Subject Site Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 300' 3181 Porter Drive CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2016-12-22 14:24:05 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLES 3181 Porter Drive 16PLN-00209 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 Research Park (RP) District Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 1 acre 4.503 acres (previously 6.2 acres across 3 APNs) 4.503 acres Min. Front Setback 50 feet special setback along Porter Drive 47 feet + 53 feet + Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 62 feet (to transformer station) 26 feet + (to newly established APN line) Min. Side Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min. yard for site lines abutting or opposite residential districts 20 feet N/A N/A Max. Site Coverage 30% (58,850 sf) unknown 26.3% (51,568 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 40% (78,467 sf) Mayfield DA allows 50% (98,083.79 sf). Stanford has allocated 29,000 sf to this property. N/A% 69,083.79 sf existing over the previous 6.2 acre lease area 50% (98,083.79 sf + 3,000 sf amenity space) Max. Building Height 35 feet (with additional 15 feet for mechanical and screen) unknown 30 feet (with 10 foot mechanical screen) Daylight Plane N/A N/A N/A (4) See subsection 18.20.040(e) below for exceptions to height and floor area limitations in the ROLM and RP zoning districts. (5) Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Administrative Office and Research & Development uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/300 sf of gross floor area for a total of 327 parking spaces N/A 327 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/3,000 sf (80% long term and 20% short term) equals 33 spaces N/A 36 bike spaces (28 long term and 8 short term) Loading Space 1 loading space for 10,000-99,000 sf or greater N/A 1 space * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3181 Porter Drive” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Project Plans – 08-19-16” ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3181 Porter Drive 16PLN-00209 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Robert Gooyer, Vice Chair Alexander Lew, Board Members Peter Baltay, Wynne Furth, Kyu Kim Absent: Board Business: Election of Chair and Vice Chair [The Board heard this item after approval of minutes.] Chair Gooyer: The final item is election of new Chair and Vice Chair. Can I get a motion from someone? Vice Chair Lew: In the past, we've done it separately. Chair Gooyer: Separately what? Vice Chair Lew: The Chair and Vice Chair separately. Chair Gooyer: All right. Let's start with the Chair then. NOMINATION Board Member Kim: I will nominate Board Member Lew as Chair of the Architectural Review Board. Chair Gooyer: Can I get a second? Board Member Furth: Second. Chair Gooyer: All those in favor. Board Members voted unanimously to approve Vice Chair Lew as Chair. Chair Gooyer: Opposed. You want to take the second part? NOMINATION Vice Chair Lew: I will nominate Board Member Kim for Vice Chair. Somebody has to second. Board Member Furth: Second. Chair Gooyer: All those in favor. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 15, 2016 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Members Gooyer, Lew, Furth and Baltay voted to approve Board Member Kim as Vice Chair. Board Member Kim: I'll abstain. Chair Gooyer: Congratulations. I think that's it. Oral Communications Chair Gooyer: Is there anyone in this audience who would like to address the Board on an item that's not on the agenda today? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Board. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Gooyer: Are there any agenda items, additions or deletions at this point? Jodie Gerhardt: We would just like to move the elections of the Chair and Vice Chair to the end of the agenda to clarify that those positions would start in the new year. Chair Gooyer: That's what I thought. Thank you. Board Member Kim: Chair Gooyer, I don't know if it matters, but I've noticed the "on air" light is not on. Chair Gooyer: Quite right. There we go. Somebody asleep at the switch. City Official Reports 1. Meeting Schedule and Assignments 2. List of Staff Approved (Minor) Architectural Reviews None. Action Items 3. 233 University Avenue [16PLN-00302]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed Renovation and Addition to an Existing Approximately 9,481 Square Foot Commercial Building. The Proposed 11,728 Square Foot Mixed Use Project Includes use of Seismic Rehabilitation Floor Area Bonus and Transfer of Development Rights Floor Area, Creates a New Second Story Office Space, and a new Third Story Rooftop Garden and Balcony. Environmental Assessment: This Preliminary Review is Not a Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, Therefore, Exempt from CEQA. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P). For more information please contact Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Gooyer: Why don't we start with the first item, being classified as Item 3, which is 233 University Avenue. A request for a preliminary Architectural Review of a proposed renovation and addition to an existing approximately 9,481-square-foot commercial building. The proposed 11,728-square-foot mixed- use project includes use of seismic rehabilitation floor area bonus and transfer of development rights floor area, creates a new second-story office space and a new third-floor rooftop garden and balcony. Environmental assessment: This Preliminary Review is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA and, therefore, exempt from CEQA. Zoning district is CD-C(CF)(P). Staff. Rebecca Atkinson: Thank you very much and good morning. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present their conceptual project for 233 University, which also has a companion address of 235 University, to the Board and receive initial comments. The basic and major components of this project include a seismic rehabilitation of the existing circa 1905 brick commercial building, removal of the existing interior mezzanine, remodeling and expansion of the basement, removal City of Palo Alto Page 3 of the rear circa between 1920 and 1940 addition, construction of a new ground-floor retail space, construction of a new, single-tenant, second-story office space, and construction of new stairs and an elevator to the new second story and a new third story. Here's a basic site plan. The project site is at the corner of University Avenue and Ramona. The two tenant spaces are generally outlined and look as shown in these lots. I'd like to point out that there's an existing rear access door that leads onto the neighbor's adjacent property, and there isn't currently an easement for that, but we're looking into that. In regard to the proposed demolition associated with the project components that I just mentioned, I'd like to point out a few different things that also helps understand the existing building. The original building only extended midway to the property, and you can see where that original building ended by this view of the existing basement. The addition that happened between the 1920s and the 1940s is this portion of the back of the property right here. This is where the entrance to the Hookah Lounge Nites business is. This is the entrance to Mill's Florist. There's also a café use, and then of course The Tap Room. The applicant has proposed two different design options. The lintel option, and I'll show you later the arch option for their proposed project. The similarities and differences of the project design are outlined in the staff report. The lintel option, I just wanted to show that briefly, with Ramona Street at the top. The arch option. Key items to consider in this project is that the existing building is a Category 1 unreinforced masonry building. The project team would like to utilize a seismic rehabilitation floor area bonus. They also have purchased transfer of development rights floor area credits, which is how they're able to propose expansion of the building envelope. Other key items include Comprehensive Plan conformance and consistency with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and, of course, zoning compliance as outlined in the staff report. There may be additional or changed zoning items depending on any Code updates by the Council relative to when the applicants submit their formal application. Next steps include this discussion today here on the preliminary Architectural Review application. The next step after that is to peer review the draft Historic Resource Evaluation to determine if the building is a historic resource per CEQA, and then also submittal of a formal Architectural Review application. There was some requested clarifications in the staff report. On page 4, in the very opening paragraph the word "historic" was mentioned a couple of times. I'd like to clarify that those comments were prepared by our former Historic Planner, Matt Weintraub, in his review comments of the project plans. In the authorship of the staff report, I should have changed the word "historic" to "original," because the peer review of the draft Historic Resource Evaluation has not been completed yet. The applicant mentioned that the design of the ground-floor retail space could be single or it could be two retail tenants. They'll be prepared to speak about that further. Also since publication, I learned that the rooftop deck, public access component warrants multiple sets of stairs and, therefore, possibly a little bit more bulk at the third floor. If possible, staff would appreciate feedback on the topics outlined on page 10 of the staff report. To date, I have not received any public comments on this project; although, two members of the public did call and were very interested in learning more about the project plans and so forth, but they did not provide any formal comments. Happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Are there any questions of staff? You know the drill, Ken. You've got 10 minutes. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Let me first have staff put the presentation up. Good morning, members of the Board. My name's Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. Good to see you this morning. I'll be presenting the project on behalf of my client, the Mills family. They're here this morning if you have any questions about the building. They've owned it for quite a while. I'd like to thank Rebecca also, Planner Atkinson, for helping us bring this project before you this morning as a preliminary review. As we know, the site is the western corner of University Avenue and Ramona. It's about a 4,500-square-foot site located right here. It's in the CD-C(P) (GF) overlay district in the Downtown, requiring ground-floor retail and pedestrian amenities. It's completely surrounded by the same zone, so there aren't any adjacent zones that impact it. This is a view of the existing building today and an historic view. It is an unreinforced masonry building. We'll be utilizing the seismic bonus. It is on the City's seismic hazards list. It is in this condition today; however, we had a historic assessment done. This came out as a result of that. The conclusion in the HRE was that the building is not historic. As staff said, they're having that reviewed by a third party currently. Our historic consultant is here, Johanna Street, if you have any questions that you'd like to address with her. The building in the 1970s had the stucco removed. For a long time, the building looked like this. This is from the '30s, where it City of Palo Alto Page 4 had stucco. You can see around the top there is a little bit of the exposed brick. The old wooden awning has since been removed, but the remnants of that wood, the outriggers for that, are still there today, that you can see. The building is in very bad shape in terms of masonry. There was a report done in 1930 or '36 that said that the mortar has lost its cementing qualities, which is a very interesting comment. This part of the building was remodeled multiple times as has been many parts of the façade. Today this does not look like that any longer; it looks like this right here. There is an historic building next door, and then next door to that is the Stanford Theatre. Just to give you an idea of the context, sort of (inaudible) our site for flexibility, energy efficiency, daylighting, etc. Create a third-floor, roof terrace as an employee amenity and provide some outdoor opportunities, and then enhance the working, living and pedestrian experience in Palo Alto. As I said earlier, we'll be using the 2,500-square-foot seismic bonus and then the 1,600-square-foot TDR that they have purchased actually from the City. This is the ground floor, just some site constraints. We're keeping more than 50 percent of the existing brick wall, which is a requirement to get the seismic bonus. This red line here indicates the masonry wall that we're keeping primarily. We need to make some modifications to the front. We are trying to create new window opportunities on Ramona to open that side up, create an entrance over on the Ramona side. Contrary to the staff report, there is an entrance on the Ramona side. Main entrance here. If the building is subdivided into multiple ground-floor retail tenants, we could add an entrance here as well. It'll be flexible in that regard. Entrance to the office space around the corner on Ramona; we felt like that was more appropriate and to keep University Avenue and the corner dedicated more towards the retail uses. Some imagery that we're working with. We have the brick as a given, a very solid material, firm, lots of sculptural qualities to it. We want to just play with the idea of steel and glass and sort of a light material and the tracery of the steel in kind of a classic way, lots of glass as well. We're thinking around the second floor it would be a rear glaze system, so it's primarily glass-like, but the detail would all be in this dark steel. Basement on the ground floor—I'm sorry. In the basement, on the bottom, that would be subdivided potentially into two spaces. The first floor, we're not showing how that would be subdivided, but certainly capable of that. This would be the office level. Staff said one office user. It's designed so it could be multiple office users. We're always aware of that and try to create spaces that are flexible. We do have two means of egress and the two stair elements there. There's a terrace at the front we've set back, trying to defer a little bit to the historic building next door, to keep the cornice line the same and also to acknowledge that the Stanford Theatre, also an historic building, is just one door away. At the rooftop terrace, the setback continues. This would all be outdoor terrace space, some green space. This would be mechanical well. We have an elevator that would go all the way up obviously to that third floor area. It's just amenity up there; there's no office space or anything, just a place to get out. Existing Ramona. One proposal—this is the lintel option—would be we keep the brick, rehabilitate it. We may have to replace this portion of it, maybe using the old bricks from the building, but then take that tracery of the steel and the glass and bring that down through the building and create this large opening here that would be the new retail opening. We have the second-floor office. You can see the balcony setback here. At the third floor, in this case we're showing a glass railing to reduce the scale of the building. Here on the far right would be the office entry with the canopy, and then the stairway is here. It's a two-story lobby inside. The second-floor height would be at, I think, 15-foot-9 so that we can use the brick as the guardrail at the front of the building here. This is the existing. The idea would be to—this actually existed prior. You saw from that historic shot it used to be a lintel building. We've gone up inside the building. Those windows, the openings are in fact there, if you go on the inside, in the attic, and look back at the University façade. That's what we're showing here. Very simple massing and organization of the second-floor setback and then the third-floor terrace beyond that. This would be the arch option. If we kept the existing arches or maybe modified them to try to raise them a little bit, everything else would be pretty similar. I think we've introduced some awnings, sun shades, on that. The two options indicated here from the corner, and then a more straight view just to give you a direct comparison between the two options that we're exploring. There are currently two existing arched openings here. The original building had these lintel-type openings here and here. The University streetscape. We're trying to relate to 251 University here in terms of the height of the second floor. It's a nice complement there. Along Ramona Street, the building steps back here to the roof terrace. At this location where the office entry is, it relates a little bit to sort of this accent that the Comerica building has there, and that is not unlike some elements that you see throughout the Downtown context. Now, we focus more on the two options. This has an optional railing on the second floor—I'm sorry—the roof City of Palo Alto Page 5 terrace, either a glass rail or continue with that tracery of the black steel perhaps. You can see the nice size of the openings now on Ramona Street. A view from the office side, down Ramona Street, looking at the office part of the building. This is all cement plaster, brick, and then the rest is steel and glass. The arched option, very similar again with what's happening above. Although, we've treated the overhang a little bit differently in its extension on this side. The ground floor here is pretty much the same. The option with either glass or again a metal railing at the top. The materials would be the same again on this side. That's it. Thank you, and I look forward to your comments. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? Board Member Baltay: Hi, Ken. I wonder if you could address for me what you're thinking of doing with the existing brick. When I look at it, it looks like it's in pretty bad shape. It seems to me that you plan to keep it there. Mr. Hayes: There is this diagram that I wasn't going to show, but staff had the same diagram. On this property line wall, that's all masonry. We're going to probably end up shotcreting that. Across the front, yes, you've identified what's going to be a struggle trying to work with that existing brick. We've had a structural engineer out there. We think we can treat it from behind. If we went with really either option, the brick that is the arch right now, that defines that little awkward arch, is a newer brick. We wouldn't want to have that new brick with the old brick. Trying to remove that is going to be a challenge. We're not quite sure how it's attached on the inside. When you do go on the inside, you can see that the old structure of the former lintel opening is indeed there. We're hoping that that brick can be removed. For this part of the building here, I have the same concern, but that's being demolished. We would like to save the brick that we can from that, and then mix it with—if we need any kind of new brick that would be similar in size and color, this is being removed, save what we can and use that to reconstruct that wall on the Ramona side, so we don't have two different kinds of brick happening on that building. Board Member Baltay: Could you show me on this diagram here where the existing 1905 brick actually remains? Mr. Hayes: Up to this point here. Board Member Baltay: It looks to me like the whole Ramona Street façade, you said, is going to be new brick or replaced brick, rework. Mr. Hayes: From here back, Peter, it's mostly wood-frame windows and doors. The original building stopped here. That will all be removed. We think it's just going to be impossible to try to shore it up. Board Member Baltay: I think so too. On the University façade as well, the original 1905 brick is only at the very top of the building now. The rest of it's been concealed by this … Mr. Hayes: It's been concealed. It's there, but it's been covered over with that arch. Board Member Baltay: The last question. I don't want to belabor the point now. All the brick seems to me to have lost its tempered face. It's been shotcreted or sandblasted or something. Why do you think that brick can be reused? The existing brick. Mr. Hayes: We reuse brick all the time. It's going to be a matter of what kind of condition that it is in. What's deficient right now is the mortar that's holding the brick together. Board Member Baltay: I see. You think the brick itself is still okay? Mr. Hayes: Right. There was no comment about the brick being of poor quality. Board Member Baltay: Thanks. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Gooyer: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Could you show me the retail access from Ramona again? Mr. Hayes: Sure. Let's see. Right there. In one of the existing openings here, we could easily put a door. We could do the same thing, in fact, here. We could do the same thing here. The idea is that it could be flexible. For that matter, you could have a doorway here. The windows go down to the sidewalk, so we should be able to provide for flexibility for that ground-floor retail tenant. Board Member Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Hayes: This opening is probably 5 feet, 5 1/2 feet. It would be a single door. Board Member Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Hayes: It would most likely be divided … Board Member Furth: Sorry. This is two retail spaces. How would that work? Mr. Hayes: If it were two retail spaces, it would be most likely subdivided this way. That's how we have sketched it. This would be one. The other would be on this side. Now, one could also envision the retail space that subdivides like this. This business gets these wonderful new windows here, and this space would get the University Avenue exposure. Board Member Furth: There would never be more than one entry point from University itself? Mr. Hayes: No, no. I think there could be. I think you could. There's no reason why we couldn't have a door here. We were just thinking for showing it as a window right now. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board on this issue? I'll close the public portion and bring it back. Peter, do you want to start? Board Member Baltay: Thanks for the nice presentation, Ken. It's welcome as always. I'm struggling with what makes this building historic. It seems to me that you're going through some effort to preserve what we're thinking of as a historic brick building. The more I look at it, the more I don't see it there really. What I see is pieces of an original building that wasn't terribly special, that wasn't even brick, then covered over with some arches and newer brick that, I think, most of us find to be the historic component. That's what people would say looks historic, those 1970s brick arches on University. Yet, when I think about the logistics of you doing what you need to do to make the building safe and bring it back to speed, I think you're going to be using mostly new brick. When I looked at the brick, Ken, on Ramona Street it's been somehow sandblasted to remove that original stucco. In doing so, somebody or something took a chisel or something to the face of all those bricks. It's been kind of gouged away. The brick doesn't have that original hard-fired clay surface on it. Mr. Hayes: It's a double-width wall, so it's an actual structural brick wall. It's not just the veneer. It's a double width. There is brick on the inside. Board Member Baltay: I think the brick that we're going to see, that's being exposed, has been so badly damaged on the face of it that I just can't see it making sense to rebuild a building with reusing that material or trying to somehow replicate it. I guess I'm just seeing a lot of difficulties trying to replicate a brick building there. I don't really have an answer for it except to say that I think it's going to be challenging. I'd like to see more detail of how you propose that. That said, my second big, driving idea City of Palo Alto Page 7 is that, I think, more than ever we want to encourage pedestrian-friendly, retail environments. In this case, it'd be nice to try to get more of that on the Ramona Street side. That would mean changing the existing building even more, opening up big openings like you have there. Again, it just comes around to me thinking why are you even trying to save this building. It really is so little of it going to be left and it's going to be so difficult that I just question this. I suppose we'll let the Historic Review Board take a look as well. Mr. Hayes: No, it's not historic. Board Member Baltay: I just really have some big question marks about us going through so much work to do that. Mr. Hayes: If I may? Board Member Baltay: Yeah. Mr. Hayes: It's a URM; it's on the City's seismic hazards list. Around 2014, the City Council determined that in order to be eligible for a seismic bonus, which is the incentive to get the owners to do something here, you have to maintain 50 percent of the existing brick. Board Member Baltay: I'm well aware of the forces driving the economic decisions. The comment I'm making is that this is, in my opinion, one of these cases where the building has just gone beyond its useful life. The effort we're going to see you go through to do that in order to get this seismic bonus upgrade seems pretty convoluted to me. I'm just questioning whether it really makes sense. Mr. Hayes: It's not historic. Board Member Baltay: The building is not historic, I think most of would agree. I think most people in Palo Alto like the idea of an old brick building on main street or University Avenue. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may just confirm that staff has made no determination on whether this building is historic or not. We need to do some further analysis. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I'm just sort of musing aloud. This is a preliminary review. I just see a lot of question marks in my mind about how historic this thing is and then what we're doing. To me, that just brings a red light. What we're going to wind up with, I'll predict, is more or less a brand new, brick building made to look like an old 1905 commercial building in Palo Alto. What we're really doing is creating history. We're recreating what we think it was like then. To me, that's not historic preservation. That's not preserving the old; it's just sort of creating another Disney Land on main street effect. I throw that out there again as food for thought. I don't see enough of this old building to survive what we're thinking of doing. All that said, I like the idea of having a marked vertical entry feature off of Ramona for your office stuff. I think that can be a nice complement to the brick horizontal or box in the front. However, I'm concerned that the new second-story office component is a little bit too tall in my mind. As I read the plans, it's almost 15 feet from floor to top of roof. I think you could pull that down a couple of feet, and that would help a lot in having the second floor not feel like it's overwhelming the brick box below it. The same thing applies to the amount of setback or lack thereof from the second floor to the brick wall along Ramona Street. It would be really nice to get a 5-foot setback or so there. Have a balcony of some kind, again just to keep—if we're going to preserve this brick building as the original thing, then the new piece above it has to be less dominant. It has to pull back a little bit more. I would like to see you explore that at least and see if that's possible. I'm concerned that you need to come up with a good solution for the service at the back. It'd be great if you can keep that door off of the private alley from the movie theater. If you're not able to, I think you need to find some way to get trash in and out, bicycle storage, things like that. It does also come back to my way of thinking that bike storage in the basement is just not realistic. That's not going to be used as a bicycle locker. It's sort of skirting the intent of the Code. We want to have bike storage on the main floor off that alley where it can actually be City of Palo Alto Page 8 used by people. The same thing applies to the trash storage in the basement. I'm skeptical that it will actually be used in that capacity. Again, a better solution to those two needs. I think you'd have to just find a little bit of space in the back to get a long-term bike storage. Also in the vein of trying to find some sort of pedestrian amenities, as long as I've been in Palo Alto the corner of that building has been this sort of flower market stall, but it's always been open. You can sort of see through, even walk through, the corner. I'm wondering if there's some way you could activate the corner more by pulling back the glazing, leaving an open spot at the corner that you might walk through. We were talking about this at the meeting the other day, pedestrian/public space off the sidewalk. I know it takes up square footage, but it might be a nice gesture to the past. I think that's what you're going to be looking at more than actual historic preservation. If you could somehow open up that corner, I think that would be a nice gesture. One last comment has to do with the third-floor balcony or what it's purpose is. It seems to me you're going through a lot of trouble to make a space that's quite a viable outdoor entertainment space or a restaurant almost up there with full-service from the elevator, a nice covered access to it, two staircases. I just wonder if I could get on the record from the applicant what the purpose of that terrace is. It just seems a little bit too much of an amenity for an office. I'm wondering if there's something else that it's intended to be used for. Mr. Hayes: That's my story. That's all I know. We've been asked to have that as an employee amenity. We have some area left over from the TDRs. We see that as a benefit. It could certainly go away too. There is no desire at this point to do a restaurant. Board Member Baltay: Is there any better statement than just employee amenity of what that space will be used for? Is it going to be rented out as a public space that you might throw an office party at or something? Mr. Hayes: No, I don't think so. (crosstalk) let the owner respond to that. Board Member Baltay: I mention it to the Board because this building is already under-parked, and it's sort of squeezing into the limits there. If this upstairs space were to become some sort of event space, then it just further exacerbates that parking problem. Really the upstairs space, the third floor, is what's driving the tall elevators and sort of the appearance of height. I'm just looking for clarity on that. Enough. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Just one more thing. They did ask in the report to, I guess, give us your particulars about the lintel version versus the arch version. Board Member Baltay: You're absolutely right. Yes, Robert. I think I prefer the lintel version. Chair Gooyer: Kyu. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Board Member Kim: Thank you for the presentation. I kind of look at the building a little bit differently. I kind of take the whole possibly historic component out of it, realizing that we're simply looking at a building that is unreinforced masonry. That's driving the bonus square footage and what have you. I'm not too concerned that the brick is historic or that it rings true to what it used to be or what have you. I'll start maybe by commenting on my preference. I think it was Lou Kahn that said a brick wants to be an arch. I kind of went back and forth, knowing that the lintels are existing there. Originally, I felt that maybe it's best to go back to what was there originally. Kind of what Peter said, it's going to be a new brick building in some sense. I think it's fine to have that arch. I think the arch kind of represents the brick in a more traditional way. Perhaps, we're creating history or recreating it, but any building is kind of creating history. I'm okay with that. In addition to that preference, on the rooftop area, the railing preference, my preference would be for an actual railing as opposed to the glass guardrail. I also preferred the arched option with regards to the office entry. I know that in the lintel option the office City of Palo Alto Page 9 entry is kind of framed as a full rectangle, but in the arched version the frame is kind of left open towards the brick side of the building. Do you follow what I'm saying? Mr. Hayes: I'm trying to. I don't see it, but … Board Member Kim: That vertical component to the left of the office doors. Mr. Hayes: Here. Board Member Kim: That seems to kind of disappear and open up in the arched version. I prefer that. I think that's kind of a subtle gesture that makes the building feel a little bit more connected. All in all, as we walk down University Avenue or California Avenue or even Lytton and Hamilton, there are underdeveloped buildings. I think this is an example of one that, with the addition of this bonus area, could bring some more vitality to this part of Downtown and to the building. I admire the previous work that you've done, that does something similar, where you're incorporating past components of a building and adding onto that. In closing, I have a few questions. Where are the possible locations for the public art and what are you intentions for signage? Mr. Hayes: We're going to be talking about the public art as soon as we get back on this subsequent to this hearing. We have not at this point discussed where it would go. I know once we engage with Elise DeMarco [sic], she's going to help us sort through that. I don't know if it will be onsite or if we're going to pay into the in-lieu for the art. Signage, I would think that with the fascia—sorry. What did I do? There's plenty of opportunity for signage at the—whatever I did. Here we go. If they wanted to have signage here—there are some awnings that we're proposing. We could do some signage on the awning itself. I haven't given it a whole lot of thought. I don't necessarily have signage expectations this early in a project. Board Member Kim: Speaking of awnings, I did realize that the arched option had some additional awnings on that second-floor office space as opposed to the lintel option. I also preferred that. Mr. Hayes: You did? Great. Board Member Kim: Thank you. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Alex. Vice Chair Lew: I have a question for staff. On the seismic bonus, what would happen if they actually have to tear the whole building down and they're not able to meet the 50 percent threshold of retaining the walls? What happens with the bonus floor area? Ms. Atkinson: There would be no bonus. Vice Chair Lew: They have to redesign the building or buy more TDR or … There's a limit on how much TDR you can transfer. It's a redesign. They have to go there. Ms. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Hayes: The limit's 5,000 square feet for this size site. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. With regard to the brick, I don't really have a strong preference, with regard to reuse or reconstruction or the arch versus the old lintels. In my mind, it's all part of the character of Downtown. Whatever you can retain is preferable. There's several projects in South Market in San Francisco where new housing is incorporated into the façade. To me, it all looks great, and it City of Palo Alto Page 10 helps keep some of the character of the downtown. I would just say reusing more is better. I'm not really picky about which brick or if it's old brick or if it's new brick. In my mind, I agree with Board Member Baltay about the second-floor height seems a little high. I would like to bring that down a little if you can. I do agree with the setback for the office. You did that on the … Mr. Hayes: On the street. Vice Chair Lew: You did that on the Ellison's project on Forest. I think that looks great. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. Thank you. Vice Chair Lew: I realize that's a different size site and everything like that. I do know that on your project on Bryant, the 278 University, the setback between the second and third floor was only like 18 inches. I know you don't necessarily have to have a huge setback. It seems like a tricky design detail to have the windows come down to the … Mr. Hayes: To a deep sill? Vice Chair Lew: … brick as you have here. It seems like a very tricky thing to do. I don't have a better suggestion. Mr. Hayes: That second floor along Ramona is probably 18 inches. Vice Chair Lew: 18 inches, yeah. Peter had a comment about the trash and bikes in the basement. I know you've done that before in other buildings. 278 University has all the trash in the basement. Maybe staff could, if you have an opportunity, if we know if it's come up—I think we can analyze it if it's causing problems. Mr. Hayes: If I may just take a second? Vice Chair Lew: Yeah. Mr. Hayes: The trash facilities that they use currently, they're not in the alley immediately adjacent to that door that leads out the back of the building. They're actually down the street further, where that alley cuts through to the City parking lot. I think we need to get an initiative going to try to create a common trash facility in that other parking lot, that would accommodate not only these businesses along Ramona but all of them into a nice facility. This is Palo Alto, and it's just a disaster over there. Vice Chair Lew: It looks terrible. I did mention that on another project. The senior center, there's some money to redo the parking lot. I did mention that the trash trailer looks terrible. I would say for the trash, though, if there's a restaurant use here, then I think the trash can't be in the basement. It has to be above. I know that the way our parking is configured, the parking ratio, it's all blended. It could be retail or … Mr. Hayes: It's all 250. Vice Chair Lew: I know that there's a whole other thing for buildings. If you have a restaurant use, there's a whole other component of building design that has to be incorporated. Mr. Hayes: Right now our program is retail and office. Vice Chair Lew: I would say also too if it were a restaurant use, I think what Peter had mentioned, having an open corner at University and Ramona would be important. At the Paris Baguette, having that open corner does wonders for attracting people. If that's not in the program, then this … City of Palo Alto Page 11 Mr. Hayes: It would be great to get feedback from the Board regarding if we did set—I already see it coming in the staff report, retail preservation. We're setting back the façade on Ramona Street. That's a net reduction in retail area. If we set back the façade, let's say—I know right now they sell out of that front vestibule area. That's considered floor area then. As soon as we set that back and if it's not for sales, service and display, that's also a net reduction of retail area. How do we maneuver around this? Vice Chair Lew: We don't know exactly what the retail ordinance is going to be going in, because that could change possibly. Those are all valid points. I would say, though too, it seems to me that the existing brick arches, which are kind of low, don't serve—I think it works for the florist currently, but I don't think it's worked that well for the restaurant and the space on the left. I think it's a bar now. I think that space would be better served by larger windows as you're showing now. I'm going to keep on going. The third-floor deck, I just wanted to say that our Downtown Guidelines—I did look it up yesterday—do encourage those spaces. I discussed this yesterday with the staff. It's page 58. We are encouraging those spaces. There is visual massing concern with them. It's just you're bringing up the stair and both towers on a small footprint. That's a concern. The Stanford Theatre is a lot taller, but there may be views that aren't so flattering from some points on University Avenue. I think we just want to be cautious about that. With regard to all the design, I think the staff was asking us to comment on all this Design Guidelines for Downtown. As you're showing it, the recesses are good especially on Ramona, because Ramona has a smaller sidewalk. Actually getting a little bit of extra space there would help. As we've seen for Paris Baguette, just adding a couple of large windows on those long, blank side street facades does wonders. Even if you just have one or two, it makes a huge difference. On the colors, the dark steel and the brick, I think those are all very handsome. With regard to the art and signage, I think it's too early for the art, to comment on it. On the signage, I think we have had issues with some of your buildings in the past, with putting signage on—meaning they just need sign exceptions. Having things like canopies makes it a lot easier to do signs, pedestrian-oriented signs underneath the canopies. I think that's where I am. I generally am in support of the project. I think the biggest thing for me would be trying to set back the glass on the second floor a little bit more. Thank you, Ken. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you, and thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the very helpful staff report. It's 30 years now that we've had seismic retrofit bonuses. It would be thrilling to have this building, which I've walked by thousands of times, frequently thinking, "Can I jump fast enough if the bricks start flying?" This in a house of foam. It will be great to have a new building there and to have a safer building there. How long as the florist use been there? Mr. Hayes: I think since the 1970s, 1960s. Board Member Furth: My husband tells me he bought flowers there then. I don't think they were for me. I had completely forgotten that it was stucco. When I've been looking at this, what I've principally thought about is that Ramona, between—that really the florist part of this building is about the most attractive thing on that face of Ramona, which is a sad one. It's an uncomfortable place to walk. You fall into the tree wells or you trip over the roots. It's not a well-designed sidewalk. I think the City needs to think about how we would change that in connection with the development of this building, because it doesn't work very well right now. All you need is one stroller, and you're in the tree well. That's primarily what I've been thinking about. I've also been thinking about the fact that, if you look at the Guidelines, it goes on about the tree-lined ambience of Downtown Palo Alto. We do not have a tree-lined ambience on this street; we have some damaged, pathetic trees and then some nicer trees. Of course, we have quite lovely park trees at the other end of the block. In looking at what happens on Ramona, I'm going to want to know how the City and perhaps the applicant intend to rework those tree wells. The tree roots are above the sidewalk level, so I don't know if that means you put in fences, I don't know if that means you put in benches. You all know how I feel about benches. If we don't think that through, City of Palo Alto Page 12 it's not going to be a success. It's going to be even worse, because people are going to be looking at interesting windows. I'm also concerned about the second story when I look at the one healthy camphor tree. One of the things we've discovered is that when you put second stories in and you don't set them back, you don't leave enough room for healthy trees. We need big, spreading trees on this street if we're going to have a tree-lined ambience that's traditionally what we've had here. I want to be sure that the proposed addition accommodates that rather than getting little—I do not want it all looking like an Italian graveyard with nothing but vertical trees. I'm wondering if it's possible to extend the balcony along the Ramona frontage and otherwise use that space differently. Generally I like the idea of having outdoor, accessible, lived-in spaces upstairs, but I too am very concerned that you've got a great deal of support structure with the double access to accommodate a lot of folks up there. I'm already concerned that the access to the office and the roof take up a lot of the Ramona frontage and a lot of the visual impact of the building. There are lots of very small access points to upstairs offices Downtown. I don't know if it can be designed to be smaller, but I would hope so. I'm also concerned that the recessed areas seem to be primarily the doorways; that's not giving us enough passageway and stepping out of the passageways if you're just in the doorways or next to the doorways or where the doors are opening if they open out. I'm looking forward to learning more about that. What I'm looking for is a better passage along that space, which is going to involve, I think, working on the City's land as well as the private property. I hope that can be done. A concern that I think the retail access from Ramona should be bigger. It looks too small to me. It doesn't look inviting enough, particularly if it's a separate space. On that point, it would be good to have the notice of the proposed project on the University frontage of the building as well as the Ramona frontage of the building, and maybe not with a black hand over it. I realize you have two, and it's perfectly readable. In thinking about whether this building is historic and what aspects of it might be historic, I don't think that's particularly important in this case. What's important about it is it's distinctive. You really know that you're at this corner; you know because of the use, you know because of its open-to-the-public selling space that you can just step into without going through doors. You know it because it essentially is the landscaping for the site. When and if the floral use goes away from that corner, we lose the good smells, the good beauty, the welcoming that goes so very well with the florist use and also with people dashing for the train. I would like to see some kind of open corner treatment. I of course would like you to be selling ice cream cones or flowers out of that corner. I don't know if that's possible in the modern era, but I'd really like you all to think about it. I think the distinctive thing about this building is that it's charming and whimsical. It's also lethal, and that needs to change. It's got this Pirates of the Caribbean ambience on the Ramona side in particular. That may not be what your market's looking for now. One of the things that concerns me about the quite elegant windows and steel, which I like, is that it doesn't seem very whimsical. I know that what's there is in many ways a bit silly. I don't think they ever needed those interesting high windows and what not. I would like to see a bit more sense of fun and play. I'm very concerned about having a completely unparked social space on the top floor. It would work in the Research Park, but I'm concerned about an area that's already very short of parking. I do like the brick. I like the fact that it's quite, as you say, sculptural. This is a sea of stucco. There is actually a brick façade across the street and up a little ways, but it's not a very interesting one. This one is. This one feels good. I hope, if you do keep brick, it's as you say textured. I'm fine with partially blocking the view of the upper reaches of the theater. I went out and looked at that; it looks fine to me. I'm also concerned about floor-to-ceiling windows on the retail side on Ramona so close to pedestrians. This may not concern the rest of you. Maybe this is how retail now operates. When this street was developed, of course, the windows started more higher up on the body, knee height. I would prefer that approach. It would give us more brick perhaps. What I'm most concerned about is an open corner, less tower massing for the second-floor access, and setting it back so we can have serious street tree experience, because that really replaces onsite landscaping Downtown. The characteristics of Palo Alto's Downtown is that it is a suburban Downtown, which means you have greenery. I'm thrilled that you're doing this project. Thank you. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I've sort of struggled with this a little bit too. We were talking about the whole thing of historic preservation and that sort of thing. There's a difference between historic with a capital "h" and historic with a lower case "h." I think this building has been around for a long time as it's City of Palo Alto Page 13 mentioned here, before the whole idea of the flower shop at the corner. I understand Peter's comment about it might be difficult for the brick, but you've made a financial assessment as to the pluses and minuses of keeping 50 percent of the wall. I think it's fine. I have no problem with the sort of textured wall. Let's face it; it is a façade, and the structure is going to be behind it. In fact, already is behind it. I'm fine with leaving the brick and just extending it down the way you show. I do agree with my members here that I'd love to see that corner open up a little bit. I'm sort of torn between two things. Initially my thought was, as was brought up here also, that setting the second floor back a foot or so along the Ramona side. I don't want to sit here and penalize you by shrinking the second floor and the first floor. It's more I'd like to see one or the other. I think if I had my druthers, I would prefer to see the corner set back somewhat on the lower floor, so you can literally walk through that diagonal, and keep the second floor where you have it. As far as the arches versus the lintel, again it's sort of that whole concept. I wasn't born and raised here, but my wife was born and raised here. It's one of these even though it's not historic, she still calls it that historic building on the corner, which probably she's not the only person who does that. Because of that, I'd like to see the lintels even though they were probably put in the '30s or whatever. That's what every one perceives to be the historic appearance of that building. I doubt if there are too many people around who remember what it looked like when it was built, that sort of thing. Based on that, I agree that probably the second floor could drop a bit. I do also agree that that tower element in the back is probably higher than it needs to be. I don't have a problem with it being there but, if you could knock that down a foot or so, I'd be happier with it. Other than that, do you feel comfortable enough you've got a general synopsis of what we're looking for? Mr. Hayes: Yeah, except one clarification. You were talking about what most people's perception of the historic quality of that building is. For the entire time that I've been in Palo Alto, it's been an arch. You said, "I have no problem with the lintel." Did you mean you had no problem with the current arch or do you prefer the lintel? Chair Gooyer: No, no, no. I'm saying keep the arch. That's what I'm saying. Mr. Hayes: Keep the arch. Your preference is the arch. Chair Gooyer: I said the brick is perceived—I said that the arch may not be the original version, but that's what people perceive to be what the building has always been. I mentioned that I don't think there are too many people around who remember it before the arch. That's pretty much what is perceived. I would favor the arch design. Mr. Hayes: Thank you for that clarification. Thank you all very much. Chair Gooyer: Anything (crosstalk). Board Member Furth: Just to make it totally complicated, I prefer the lintel. Mr. Hayes: I'm sorry? Board Member Furth: Just to make it further complicated, I prefer the lintel. Mr. Hayes: Let's see. All raise your hand … We'll make a decision. Chair Gooyer: Thanks, Ken. Board Member Kim: Did we want to get any input from Mr. Dockter while he's here regarding those street trees? Chair Gooyer: Sure, why not, seeing as how you're sitting there. As far as the whole expansion of the canopy when you go above the first floor, have you had a chance to review that? City of Palo Alto Page 14 Dave Dockter: Correct, yeah. Staff has reviewed it. I would like to ask actually for a clarification from Board Member Furth, to define serious street tree experience, because we'll design for that. Board Member Furth: If you stand on University and look down Ramona, you don't see a series of large, healthy trees. Board Member Kim: We lost two of them. Mr. Hayes: Here's the site elevation right here. Board Member Kim: We lost two huge trees on Ramona, if I recall, in the past year or 18 months. Board Member Furth: Right. We have one that's been quite—one of the larger ones is quite eccentrically pruned. I don't expect it to be all wonderful soon, but I'd like us to be planning so that it will be wonderful. I love camphor trees; I know they're very difficult trees to live with. That's my ideal shape and filtered light and green much of the year except if you don't want it to be. We have good tree wells as you approach Lytton. That really helps the sidewalk. We do not have good tree wells as you get close to University. This is where people line up to go see the Harold Lloyd movies. This is where people who live Downtown North come with their children on bikes and scooters and prams to get to Downtown or the farmers market or University. A good street tree experience means that I see trees with healthy canopies, that don't look like they've been tortured by living in an urban environment. Stressed, let's put it that way, as the one on the right is. That their roots are managed in a way that lets us have the best use of an already functionally narrow sidewalk. Chair Gooyer: Before you get started, we do have a large agenda today. What I'd like basically is maybe to answer Wynne. Do you feel the trees are in serious—is there going to be a problem as far as putting a second story at that location? Mr. Dockter: It would be helpful if the second story stepped back a bit, whatever extent it could. It would allow balancing branching from the new street trees in the future. The second-story step-back would definitely be helpful, because the whole building is going to be a shaded experience for these new trees. We can come up with a whole new streetscape scenario for the three new trees. We were looking for direction from the Board on how important the streetscape was and whether to take the existing camphor and say maybe we need to start all over new with it or keep the mature tree on the corner, because it's something left of the old days. It's a green, mature tree. Do we take it out now? Hearing the Board's emphasis, I think, we should be looking at a whole new streetscape. Redoing the entire sidewalk frontage is the only way to get new street trees in responsibly even with that large camphor tree. Removing that and starting out with a whole new frontage on the side street there, we can get away with three new street trees. If we have the opportunity to do underground Silva Cells or engineered soil mix, we can get away with that. Lastly, the open corner, there is a way to establish at the foot of the post, if you had an open corner, a green pillar to restore that floral suggestion to the corner for everybody in the future. If you planted a little horsetail, a narrow seat-wall planter against the post with a vertical vine, you might be able to get away with greenery changing the shopping behavior aspect of an area. We can restore the streetscape. That's the end of my comments. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Go ahead. Board Member Furth: I inadvertently sentenced trees to death. What I want is us to have word from the City on how, now that these are becoming two-story buildings, we should think about the trees. I don't care whether you decide they're short, little trees that are going to give us tree experience lower down or taller ones. I don't want something that's going to fail. Chair Gooyer: Thank you very much. City of Palo Alto Page 15 4. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER. 240 Pasteur Drive [16PLN-00362]: Recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for a Requested Approval of an Architectural Review Application to Allow the Construction of the a new Biomedical Innovations Building for the Stanford University School of Medicine. The Approximately 215,000 Square Foot Building was Previously Entitled in 2011. The Proposed Project Includes Architectural Modifications to Reflect Updated Internal Program Needs, Surrounding Pathways, Heritage Trees, and the Architecture of the Adjacent Hospital. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report was Previously Certified for This Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: HD. For more information please contact Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Gooyer: Next item on the agenda. A public hearing for 240 Pasteur Drive, the recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for a requested approval of an Architectural Review application to allow the construction of a new Biomedical Innovations building for the Stanford University School of Medicine. Approximately 215,000-square-foot building was previously entitled in 2011. The proposed project includes architectural modifications to reflect updated internal program needs, surrounding pathways, heritage trees and the architecture of the adjacent hospital. Environmental assessment: an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. Zoning district: HD. Staff. Hang on. Vice Chair Lew: We have to do disclosures. Chair Gooyer: Pardon me? Vice Chair Lew: Disclosure. I met with the applicant, Zach Pozner, on September 6th of this year to review the project. Chair Gooyer: Actually I was going to do the same thing but later. I also met with the applicant. Staff. Rebecca Atkinson: Thank you very much. This project begins with the 2011 approval of the Stanford University School of Medicine Master Plan. Here you can see the footprints of the approved three buildings, FIM1, FIM2 and FIM3. The School of Medicine Master Plan includes demolition of four existing buildings listed here and replacement of those buildings and subsequent associated floor area with three new Foundations of Medicine buildings, which was the title at the time. FIM1 received Architectural Review approval. FIM2 and FIM3 did not yet receive Architectural Review approval. You could see those two buildings coming forward at some time in the future. Here's the proposed site plan for the nearer term. We would have the existing Edwards, Lane and Alway buildings, Lucas is to the other side of the proposed FIM1, recently retitled to Biomedical Innovations building. This is the proposed footprint for BMI. I'd like to walk you through the proposed elevations as well as the previously approved elevations to just do a basic comparison. Otherwise, you have two sets of project plans that were delivered with your staff reports. You could do a comparison in the booklets, and hopefully you'll be able to utilize those project plans as the project moves forward into subsequent hearings. One of the main goals for staff at this time, at this first hearing, was to disseminate quite a lot of background information that you would need in order to thoroughly review this project at this hearing and also at subsequent hearings. The proposed elevations are on these next two slides; which side of the building is indicated northeast and so forth in the corner of the slide. The north elevation … Board Member Furth: In lay terms too, which street we're looking at. Ms. Atkinson: I was going to go to it. Sorry. The north elevation faces Pasteur, for reference. The east elevation faces the Edwards building, and the west elevation faces Lucas. The proposed elevations have a height of basically 72 1/2 feet to the roof, basically 84 feet to the top of the mechanical screen, and 92 feet to the top of the proposed exhaust stacks. The floor area for this building is between 197,000 and 216,000 square feet. The reason why that has not been finalized yet is that staff is still doing a co- compliance review in regard to floor area. In the hospital district, certain types of storage rooms are City of Palo Alto Page 16 "exempt" from floor area calculations. We're working through the internal programming to see what counts or what doesn't. The original building was approved at 168,000 square feet, and the increase in floor area is largely due to the internal programming of the basement, which was previously considered mechanical, equipment room and exempt in the first round. The building itself is larger in terms of height, and the footprint has increased somewhat. The actual bulk of the building to the tune of about 30,000 square feet is largely in the basement. The proposed ground-floor plan has entrances facing Lucas and also facing Edwards and primarily—sorry—with a lobby area that focuses more towards the internal Biomedical Innovations plaza, opposite of Pasteur. The previously approved elevations had extensive glazing. I believe the applicant called it a saddlebag approach to the building design. The previously approved ground-floor plan had entrances off of Pasteur as well as an inviting space with a connection between the protected grove of oak trees. The interior of the building also had entrances and a public plaza in a location similar to what's proposed. Key items in this review include the urban design questions and insights about how the building relates to the larger School of Medicine campus, how the project design has evolved in order to avoid environmental impacts as identified in the previous Environmental Impact Report including in regard to footprint changes to retain the one set of protected trees, which serves as a grove, and then another Group 1 protected tree also facing Pasteur, more on the Edwards side of the building. We have a wide variety of Municipal Code items that we're reviewing for conformance. Staff is still in the process of doing all of that background analysis and so forth. The Stanford University Medical Center Design Guidelines are also at play in this project. I think it's fine to propose a different skin of the building and massing, floor area and so forth. We do have the Design Guidelines that are in effect for the entirety of the Stanford University Medical Center project. Some of those Design Guidelines are outlined in your staff report. Staff recommends a motion to review the project and continue the project to a date uncertain. There are also other motions that are available to you. Staff has not received any public comments on the project to date. The applicant does have a detailed presentation for you and additional materials that they would like to present. I believe they're outlined right here. Thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions that you might have. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Would the applicant like to—let me ask first are there any questions of staff? I don't think so. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? You have 10 minutes. Justin Brooks: Good morning. Thank you to the Board for the opportunity to share our project with you. Thank you to staff for your review comments. I'd like to take you through the Stanford Biomedical Innovations building project. By way of reminders, the key drivers in this project. This project was previously approved by the Council in 2011. In large part, we are seeing the changes as revisions and modifications to that process. The building program is generally the same as the 2011 project, that being primarily laboratory spaces, work spaces and associated support spaces. The building size is in general as noted in the staff presentation, roughly the same with the exception of the changes to the lower-level floor areas. We've taken great strides to improve protection of the protected tree areas and have adjusted the building footprint thusly. There have been refinements to the exterior skin; that will be one of the primary talking points today. Those are in large response to changes in the building program allocations within the building footprint. Not changes in amount, but changes in arrangement. That exterior design has been refined to respond to some of the four key takeaways from the previous hearings. First and foremost is this idea of gateway entry to the School of Medicine. The revised exterior elevations and massing do seek to improve that sense of gateway and welcoming composition to the campus. We've also modified building entries and entry articulation to improve visual hierarchy and improve visual prominence to pedestrians circulating around the building. There was additionally a request for final landscape plans, which have been included with the submission package. We are working closely with the City to move those forward, particularly in relationship to the protected trees. Lastly, final photometric plans have been included in the package, and I will share with you an illustrative approach of that photometric layout. As an orientation, the project being discussed here is labeled as proposed FIM1. As projects change, we are now calling that BMI. Campus Drive is to the south of the project. The body of the main campus is to the south and to the east. The new building footprint is largely in line with the previous proposed building footprint. Those modifications that have been made really are intended to provide greater opportunities for survivability of the heritage trees. We've also modified the building footprint to increase the visibility and visual hierarchy of building entry. In terms of City of Palo Alto Page 17 adjustments to the project landscape plan, we have really limited the amount of work that we're going to perform. In fact, we've essentially eliminated it under the canopy, the drip line of those protected heritage trees, again with an eye towards giving them opportunity for maximum survivability. We've programmed the spaces around the site in a way that integrates a different sort of range and scale of public and individual uses for collaboration, outdoor meetings and events. The previously reviewed and approved FIM1 plan indicated on screen shows an arrangement of laboratory modules to the exterior perimeter of the building. That was really the biggest driver in the proposed previous massing. We certainly want our buildings to tell the story about what's going on inside and telegraph that program through to the exterior. As the program requirements from the University and the School of Medicine have shifted, there's been greater prominence placed on the importance of work areas and an increased look at a culture of lab safety, which has asked us to move work areas outside of the laboratory environment, which in that process has begged some questions about allocation of those desk spaces near natural light areas. The revised floor plan shows those laboratory environments to the interior of the building and those work spaces to the exterior of the building. The intent there is really to drive natural light access for folks who are working within the building on a day-to-day basis. We're also trying to create spaces that have a high level of transparency through the floor plate, so that that natural light can be utilized deeper into the building including into the laboratory spaces. This change in the disposition of the program within the building is really one of the largest drivers for the exterior design changes. You can see the comparison of the previously approved building footprint in red over the revised footprint plan. There is highlighted in yellow the changes we've made based on the more well- understood tree location and size of the foliage and canopy. We've moved the building away from those trees as much as we can while maintaining the programmatic requirements. You'll also see some adjustments to the building entries. Those are to create visual hierarchy and welcoming senses of space. Inside the building floor plan, you'll see in the center of the building are the laboratory environments, which were previously pushed to the exterior. We've now located those central to the work spaces and support spaces. The intent here is really to drive natural light as deep and as far through the building as we can. On the exterior, we'll be seeing larger areas of glazing in front of those office and work spaces, showing that program through to the exterior. Revised landscape plan indicates that most of the, in fact all of the planting and modifications will be occurring outside of the heritage tree footprints. The site will be programmed in a number of different scales and ways including incorporation of what we're calling the BMI plaza. This will be part of future development. The building presents itself with a sort of front porch, which we see as a welcoming, active environment for pedestrians and users of the building to interact with the public space. We've also incorporated a secondary entry on the west side of the building, along Governor's Lane. That entry is located farther south from Pasteur, and the intent there is to draw connections from faculty and staff who are parking on campus at places like the Stock Farm parking. There are amenities around the edges of the site and around the edges of the heritage trees. We're really trying to create these small composed spaces as a way to celebrate the heritage trees and sort of create spaces around them without interrupting their root structure or their growth patterns. In concept or illustrative plan, this is the photometric approach. We've really tried to dial in the lighting to the places where it will be the most used and use fixtures that don't draw great attention to themselves or are extensions of the existing lighting strategy on campus. If you want more detail on the photometrics, it is included in the ARB submission package. In terms of the building exterior, we certainly are looking to the Stanford kit of parts, which is defined in large part by the buildings done on campus to date. In 2011, there was a particular suite of buildings which were referred to for defining that kit of parts. As we've moved forward in the intervening years and this is part of the development of the exterior, there have been other projects that have evolved that Stanford kit of parts. Rather than distinct design parameters, this is really an evolving language. We're seeking to update the building in some ways to reflect that kit of parts as well as the programmatic changes. Not the least of which is the possible project directly across Pasteur. Building elevations are composed, borrowing elements or at least nodding to elements within the historical structures or the more referential structures around us as well as looking at the more current projects that have gone on campus, including the hospital, with large areas and expanses of glazing and metal panels, which is a little bit of a departure from some of the more traditional university palette and something we've chosen to respond to. Looking at the elevation along Pasteur, the building is generally oriented in an east-west direction and horizontal in nature in keeping with Lucas and Edwards and what will be in future developments. In looking at the section City of Palo Alto Page 18 coming from the new hospital down through our site onto the Medical Center campus, you can see that we are trying to respond to a stepping in scale. Across Pasteur, the hospital is a fairly large building, so we are trying to meet that intermediate scale where some of the articulation in the fenestration picks up on a few of the formal moves but at a finer grain as you move into the campus environment. As I mentioned before, there is really a drive to try and connect building program, view, daylight needs to the exterior fenestration and articulation. While we still do have what was referred to as sort of a saddlebag strategy, that is representing those work places on the outside of the building. It's very much more about gathering light and pushing them through the building now. The kit of parts that we have defined based on our research and looking at the campus around us and the developments of the newer projects, we're defining entry through the use of red terracotta tile as a rain screen application. We're defining the work spaces in stone and metal and glazed volumes, which are represented as the "saddlebags." There is what we're calling the collaboration arcade, and that is a glass-fiber-reinforced concrete construction. That represents circulation and collaboration spaces within the building. We think of that as a reinterpretation of the typical Stanford campus arcade, a place where interaction occurs outside of laboratory or working spaces. On the south side, you can see that we are additionally telegraphing through that language of the exterior articulation of the programmatic elements inside, which have shifted since 2011. In greater detail, the elements of the exterior here in the case of the BMI porch or the front of the building, we have that Rocamat limestone which is a traditional part of the Stanford campus vocabulary, a combination of glass and metal window wall and that red clay terracotta rain- screen tile, which comes to visually signify building entry, trying to respond to the comments about visual hierarchy and clarity of entry. Chair Gooyer: If you'd finish it up. Mr. Brooks: Previous renderings show a very highly glazed building, which would have been difficult, I think, to push through Board approval. We currently do have Board of Trustees approval on the revised design. In meeting that approval, we have increased the amount of stone and balanced that with the glazing. We've also introduced this large, overhanging canopy element, which serves to provide the idea of gateway to the Stanford School of Medicine campus. A much larger entry feature there. Again, looking from the south, that overhanging gateway canopy with the idea of aperture or building entry. In terms of building entries and the language of very transparent, low iron glazings, highly transparent, combined with terracotta clay rain screens, we have, I think, increased the transparency and the visual hierarchy of the building entries, particularly at the main entry. In this case, viewed from BMI plaza. Highlighted there. Looking from Pasteur, you can see the clear articulation of what we're calling the interactive arcade, the collaboration arcade, punctuated with a sort of rooftop or fourth-floor rather terrace as a visual perch and sense of arrival and give some compositional breakup to the building. Looking from the other direction, we can see that secondary entry, which is still using this language of terracotta rain-screen tile to signify and indicate entry but at a smaller scale because it is secondary entry. With that, I invite your comments and questions. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Are there any comments of the applicant? Board Member Kim: I have a couple of questions. I don't know if I missed it, but could you just introduce yourself very quickly? Mr. Brooks: I'm so sorry. Justin Brooks from ZGF Architects presenting on behalf of Stanford School of Medicine. Board Member Kim: Kind of a side question. How old is the CCSR building? Do you know by any chance? Mr. Brooks: I couldn't myself answer that offhand, but I can see if my (crosstalk). Board Member Kim: Do you know if there are any campus plans for … City of Palo Alto Page 19 Mr. Brooks: 2001. Board Member Kim: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? Go ahead. Vice Chair Lew: I have one architectural question and then also one landscape question. On the architecture, the previous building had sunshades on the south side, and now I don't see any. I was wondering how are you handling the solar control. Mr. Brooks: Solar control is being handled internally through roller mechanical shades. That will be tied to the building management system, so those will be operated through a computer system which will control glare and solar heat gain onto the building. We've eliminated those exterior filigree elements. Vice Chair Lew: There are window shades on the inside of the … Mr. Brooks: That's correct. Vice Chair Lew: It's allowing the heat in the building, so you have to change the glass. Mr. Brooks: The driving loads in this particular building are really driven by the fume (inaudible) exhaust and the requirements for air changes within the laboratories. In our analysis, there actually isn't an incredible amount of gain with the incredible amount of performance gain in the exterior sunshading strategy. The other thing that we've done is move seating spaces or working spaces away from the building perimeter. Largely circulation occurs at the building perimeter, which relieves folks sitting at their desk from the thermal comfort issues. In a sort of energy analysis, it's actually performing at a similar level. Vice Chair Lew: To tie into that, it seems like you've changed the trees between CCSR and the BM … Mr. Brooks: In terms of species? Vice Chair Lew: Species, yeah. Was that also done for solar control? Mr. Brooks: I think it's in large part as part of the sort of understanding a little bit better what the scale of the space is between CCSR and this building and also with some reprogramming of the collaborative and interactive spaces there, I think, more appropriately scaled to the current landscape proposal. Vice Chair Lew: Has the proposed building been pushed closer to CCSR? Mr. Brooks: The building has been set at an imaginary property line based on Code requirements that allows us to meet the level of glazing we have. I think it's largely the same as the setbacks before, because we were looking for a similar level of glazing. We have changed the setbacks on the north side to increase the distance from the heritage trees. Vice Chair Lew: I think my last question is on the street trees. At least in the Master Plan, it was saying that everything in front of this building would be like an oak woodland, so new and existing oak trees. That's changed. I was just wondering what the rationale was for that change. Mr. Brooks: The oak groves that we're really celebrating are now the coast live oaks that we're preserving. The street trees along the north side of the building, along Pasteur, are an extension of the species and type and arrangement that occurs along Pasteur and other areas. Rather than stitching that oak grove along in whole, we're really trying to make something special out of the preserved coast oaks that we're keeping. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? Board Member Furth: I've just got a couple of questions about—thank you for introducing some of us to this project. I was looking at your website and its discussion of how the existing hospital could not be brought up to current seismic standards. It will still have beds or it won't? How will the existing hospital building function? Mr. Brooks: I'm going to have to defer to the hospital's owner on that. Zach Pozner: Hi. Zach Pozner from Campus Planning at Stanford. The function of the hospital isn't really relevant to this School of Medicine laboratory building. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on … Board Member Furth: There's extensive discussion of the integration of this building and these buildings not only into the medical school but the clinical parts of the program. I wanted to know what that nearby building's function would be. If it's industry, we can … Mr. Pozner: You're talking about the Edwards building, directly to the east of us? Board Member Furth: I'm talking about the Edward Durell Stone building, am I not? I'm talking about the—what's been the hospital for years. Mr. Pozner: That's used for clinical offices and research right now. Chair Gooyer: I don't think that's really that critical at this point. Board Member Furth: Is it a mystery? Chair Gooyer: To answer your question, obviously the one reason they're going through all this is because that particular building needed to be replaced. The function will not be what it used to be. It will no longer be classified as a hospital, if that's what … Board Member Furth: The reason I was asking is because, in reading your statements, there's a lot of discussion of the stitching together of the medical school and the clinical settings and having interaction between various groups of people. I was trying to figure out how much interaction with people in that—let me phrase it a different way. How important is interaction with people in that building to this building as part of the plan? Mr. Pozner: Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were asking about the old—not the Edward Durell Stone building that the School of Medicine occupies but the hospital that's still a hospital. That's several hundred yards away. Thanks for clarifying. I do think we still anticipate quite a lot of collaboration in this plaza between the existing Edward Durell Stone building and our new building. I also want to remind everybody that the plan is to decamp those buildings. This is the first large step to be able to decamp those buildings and then demo them and then build another future lab building. Board Member Furth: For me, of course, since I haven't been participating it's not a reminder. I've been spending a lot of time in University of Washington Medical Center which, of course, integrates a huge hospital with a huge research facility in a slightly different way. I've been thinking a lot about how that works. Thank you. Board Member Kim: Board Member Furth, if you flip to page 59 in the new packet, there's a graphic that has some colors for the School of Medicine, showing its relationship to the hospital. I too originally was a little bit confused. I thought that the whole Edward Durell Stone building was the hospital, but it actually City of Palo Alto Page 21 turns out that the part of that Durell Stone building closest to here is currently being used as a clinical building. Board Member Furth: When I went to the website and it talked about how many beds would be in which facilities, it looked like—I couldn't make the numbers work without having some of them be in that building. Enough. Mr. Brooks: Just to be clear, the facility that we're proposing is not a patient space. It's just purely a research space. Board Member Furth: My other question to you about the building was—as I understand it, there's no change in the purpose or function of this building. It's simply how you want to allocate the spaces within it. Is it intended to have restricted public access or will it be open? Mr. Brooks: It will be in large part restricted to staff and faculty working within the building. There may be functions at times which allow some level of public activity, largely at the lower level entry lobby and conferencing space. Board Member Furth: Would there, for example, be public access to the lobby and the adjacent bathrooms? Mr. Brooks: There may be. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: At this point, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this Board on this project? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back to the Board. Kyu, you want to start? Board Member Kim: Thank you for your very detailed presentation. Overall I'm very impressed. I have actually very few comments. I think the change from the mostly glazed building to introducing more stone elements is actually very welcome. I think the programmatic changes that drive the overall changes of the exterior of the building also make sense. I'm fine with that. I appreciate the fact that you've set back the building a little bit differently to accommodate the trees. If there's one thing that I’m still a little bit torn about, it's actually the building's relationship to Governor's Lane. I know previously that you were following that diagonal and kind of respecting the parallelism to the Lane itself. However, I do understand that CCSR and the Lucas building across the Lane do not currently conform to Governor's Lane. I can see how this could also make it sense. I don't think it bothers me enough to make it a significant comment. I think overall the choice of materials, you've done a great in explaining the kit of parts and the evolution of the architectural language that the campus is taking. I need to anticipate the more thorough review from Planning as far as some of the other elements that perhaps we could comment on. Overall from a design standpoint, I think the building is very impressive. I think it makes sense. The changes make sense. I don't really have too much other to say than that. Thank you. Mr. Brooks: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Alex. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. I was on the Board when the original building came through. To my recollection, the original design got a lukewarm reception here. A lot of Board Members thought it was too generic. I think the refinements you've done are really huge improvements to the building, especially because it's such a long façade facing Pasteur Drive. Breaking it up and giving greater definition to each of those elements has helped the building significantly. The only thing that I think is the (inaudible) on the building is the corner facing the CCSR porch. The Norman Foster building has such a grand public gesture, that it doesn't—you do sort of acknowledge it, but it's just a little, one-story arcade. To me, City of Palo Alto Page 22 that's disappointing. The way I look at it is it's internal, facing the campus. It's not a public face to the City. I think my second comment is maybe for Dave Dockter with regard to the oak trees. I've received criticism on previous projects where we've saved oak trees, that the buildings were too close to the existing trees. You have a great sense where you actually go out and look at all of those. I was just wondering if maybe you could explain how much of the existing tree can be pruned and if having the new building so close to the existing tree will affect its long-term viability. Mr. Dockter: Thank you, Board Member Lew. The general tree protection guidelines that were established in the Mitigation Measures have been longstanding. The siting of the footprint of the building has really not changed too much. There's always been final updated tree report information that needs to be submitted to us, that will really tell the tale on how close things are getting to the roots and protecting the trees. Some of this is still yet to be determined in final as-built condition elements. The biggest concern I have is the potential shading of the, on this graphic, right-hand tree. It is incredibly close. The amount of foliage that can be removed off both of these trees is very, very little. There is a few lower foliage bumps, if you will, on the future building side. That's about it. These trees have lived forever with 100 percent solar access. This new building is going to absolutely create new shade impact to the trees. There has been a shade study done on both of these. I would like to seek the Board's direction for—perhaps another solar shade study needs to be considered to evaluate the top trellis that's over-shading the right-hand tree. That was not in the original assessments, the shade study. I'm not sure if louvers are needed. If solar access could be given back to the tree, that would be a little bit more assurance. If we approved it just as-is right now, to me it's an unknown of 10 years from now we may see shading the way Palo Alto Bol oak tree has suffered some shading die back from something it's not used to. I'm just not sure. We're getting as close as we can. The trees would survive the building project. Shading, I am unsure at this time with positiveness in trying to predict solar limitations. Mr. Brooks: If I may interject. The study that we've done looks at a baseline comparison of the tree in its current state—a baseline comparison of the building as proposed and approved in 2011 and the new current proposal. What we find is that largely the shading impact is from the building itself as opposed to the canopy, the massing of the building. The impacts from the canopy, which working with Mr. Dockter, we have and are dialing in the shape and orientation and extent of the louver which has what we would call a nominal impact on the shading in the given calendar year on the order of tens of hours. There is in fact a detailed shading study, I believe, that's been submitted. Vice Chair Lew: This is ongoing, that staff is reviewing. The next step, you're saying the staff is recommending another shading study in addition to the one that's been done? Ms. Atkinson: Staff just recently received the dimensions for where the building would actually be placed. I think it's page 52 or whatever that was, the slip sheet in your plan set. With those updated dimensions, we're going to be able to take a look at the prepared solar study a little bit more carefully to see if all the numbers match up and so forth. We can do further analysis on that shade study, and looking forward to that. Vice Chair Lew: The other buildings in Palo Alto where we've saved oak trees were less than 50 feet. They were probably like 45 feet. We're looking at a building a whole other scale larger than those. It would be only worse as I look at it. Thank you. Mr. Dockter: Just to conclude, we're okay in that the Mitigation Measures say that they will save this tree. They have committed to saving this tree. The details will be left 'til later, which is now because the building is going in. They've committed to saving and mitigating the tree. The only thing I think we need to deal with is just the solar access aspect of it and the additional louvers and trellis. That's the only thing, I think, that's within the Board's purview at this point. They're committed to having to save the tree. If it dies, it will need to be replaced and mitigated per the conditions. We're set. If it gets shaded out and dies 10 years from now, then there's a process for fixing that. Environmentally we're okay. We just want to do as little harm in the beginning as possible. The shading is important to dial in on. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Vice Chair Lew: Thank you, Dave. That's all that I have. I think the building generally is handsome. It is a larger scale than the neighboring buildings, but that's part of the plan for the Medical Center. That's it. Mr. Brooks: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. To show you the source of my confusion, in the www.SUMCRenewal.org/project space, it makes a statement that there will be 368 new beds for a total of 600, which left me wondering where the others were. Mr. Brooks: I honestly would have to defer to the School of Medicine in terms of the language on their website. Board Member Furth: What I'm just trying to figure out is when people are in hospitals, they and their visitors want to walk. There's not only the clinicians and scholars and students running back and forth, but you get families wandering around and looking for places to walk. I'm thinking about you saying this is a gateway, which would invite the public generally. That means you want to know that they can find the door—they're going to have to learn the code of the terracotta—and have access to bathrooms and whatnot. You seem to have created a magnetic space with this tree. I thought that people would be drawn towards it, and then how would they find their way into a place of shelter. Mr. Brooks: When we're talking about patients or users coming from the actual Medical Center, the hospital, we're sort of setting a bit of a coarse edge to what is actually the School of Medicine campus. This is a bit of a delineation. The gateway aspect is really at a campus scale. That's what this sort of overarching trellis is trying to do. I think what that's doing is really inviting people onto campus and less so trying to invite people from the hospital or Medical Center into the BMI building. Board Member Furth: That's why I was asking you the question about access. I understand that. I've spent 50 years walking around the Stanford campus, which in some ways is very inviting. I think it's helpful when people—as a matter of fact, people will be there; they will not all be affiliated. I'm happy to know that if they find a door, they can find the facilities. It's a formidable building. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Is that it? Board Member Furth: I'd like a drinking fountain somewhere too. Chair Gooyer: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Hi. I wonder if you could pull up the large 3-D perspective from Pasteur. I'm looking at page 26 on your package. Is it possible to put that on the screen? Mr. Brooks: Yeah. Is this the image you're referring to? Board Member Baltay: That looks good. Thank you. I find the building to be a large, vaguely attractive assemblage of what I call modern Stanford architecture. It's not bad; it's not ground-breakingly great architecturally either. I think it's an improvement from what was approved in 2011. I think the use of the limestone is nice. Overall I can support the project. I'm disappointed with this as with almost every building on the new Stanford medical campus in that it needs visual cues for wayfinding. There's no obvious entrances. There's no front door. There's no marking of where someone would go in. I pulled this screen up because in my walking around the campus the other day, there's a tremendous amount of pedestrian passage from the corner where the oak tree is, where Pasteur Drive is. A lot of people are flowing into the campus, out of the campus. Wynne's comments about the hospital are on point actually. City of Palo Alto Page 24 What's going to happen in the future is the old hospital, which is out that gate and to the left of this image, is going to end up becoming related to the research taking place in this building and on campus. There will be a lot of activity, pedestrian passageway through this corner, past this tree. I bring all that up because I'm setting the point that this building doesn't have any obvious entrance or visual cue at that corner by the tree. I think that's a real lost opportunity. When you look at this image, there's sort of a one-story, terracotta enclosed area, which your plans call a common area. I could see that being a nice space inside perhaps. To me it's a tremendously lost opportunity to allow the building to be entered from this corner as well, possibly celebrating the oak tree by passing alongside it, underneath it, creating outdoor spaces that are open and welcoming to all the researchers and public on the campus, coming in and out off Pasteur Drive. When I read through your—there was an Initial Study done of the campus flow and stuff. Again, this corner was identified as the most prominent and trafficked spot. I'm just asking if there's any way you can adjust—perhaps make your entry porch lobby larger, stretch it along the entire side of the building so you can come in from all those corners. Use the tree as a wayfinding marker, as an obvious front door entrance. The other comment I make—it's probably just throwing it into the wind. You have a four-story mass facing Pasteur with a limestone frame around it. That's on this image right here. If that were only three stories tall and had a terrace on top of it where functions could be held for the facility, you would get public activity up high, looking over a wonderful public, almost like a mall for the whole medical facility, as you come in there. It would help to get more life on the face of the building. I understand that programmatically that's probably not possible, but I'm just pointing out to my way, just sketching on this thing, if you could lower that one piece down, you would help the massing of the building and you'd bring more life and vitality to the façade. Those two comments being said, I can support the project. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I was fighting with initially the same sort of thing that you're talking about. In a situation like this, I think the programmatic requirements sort of overshadow what's there. The reality of it is the average person never needs to be in this building. If they don't know where the front door is, I don't think that's a big deal. If it's an attractive-looking building as they walk by it, that's one thing. Like you said, a patio or something like that just really is not the function of this building. I think if it was a clinic or an MOB, anything where the general public or things like that would go in, then I would say I agree with you. The only part that bothers me a little bit is I can see the whole thing about the kit of parts, but it's one of the things that has always bothered me. Having been in the industry forever, a lot of design these days is done based on a kit of parts. You've already pre-designed a particular corner or this or that or whatever. You pull it out of the computer, and you throw 15 of these pieces together. Voila, you've got a building. I'd hate to see the hospital come to that point where all the buildings end up being. Anybody who has a sense of how to put something together just takes the various pieces that are standard, and a building pops out. I think we see too much of that in a situation like this where offices have these kit of parts and do it. Obviously Stanford is a little bit bigger scale than the average architectural firm that does smaller-scale projects. Having said all that on my little soapbox here, I like this design better than the previous one. It was interesting because—I wasn't on the Board for the previous one. One of the initial comments on the previous one was it's too massive, break it up. When you see the final result, it looked too broken up. It looked like a bunch of little pieces put together. I like the size of this. It is a very large building, but when you look right across the square at the size of the new hospital, it's very well-placed in size. It doesn't get lost beyond the hospital, but it works well with the hospital. Based on that, I can approve it the way it is here. I could support it; let's put it that way. Thank you. Mr. Brooks: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Based on that, how do you want to approach this or how do you want to move it further? Obviously staff still needs to do various things. Could I get from somebody just to have this forwarded to a date uncertain? Board Member Baltay: Sure, it's easy to continue it. I'm wondering if we can't find some way to move it along more than that and approve it with conditions. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Gooyer: Is somebody comfortable with that? I don't think we can anyway. As far as the applicant's concerned, they understand that … Jonathan Lait: I would just say that we need to do our Code analysis before we can get that approval. It would be helpful if there was a unanimous or at least a majority of the Board … Chair Gooyer: That's what I was going to say, a consensus that we can support the design as ... Mr. Lait: If there's things that need change, it would be helpful to know what those precise items are. Chair Gooyer: If we go that route, is there anything that anyone would like to add on a specific basis? Board Member Furth: I just need to say that I don't understand yet the changes in the landscaping along the front of Pasteur. I have no comment on them, but I will be looking more closely. I hadn't realized what the change was from the previous design. Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? Board Member Baltay: I don't know if we have enough support for what I was talking about, changing the way the building is entered off the corner of Pasteur. That would be my condition. I'd like to see that studied further. Mr. Pozner: Can I respond to that? Peter, is that all right? Board Member Baltay: Through the Chair. Chair Gooyer: Go ahead. Mr. Pozner: The issue relative to entry, you guys have really locked in on the two things we've been struggling with, going through the entire design process, how to balance the idea of a gateway entry between hospitals and School of Medicine which, as Robert said, function as two really separate mini- campuses. To be really clear about wayfinding for the people that come and go to this building every day, we studied ways … Chair Gooyer: (inaudible) front door. Mr. Pozner: Yeah. The introduction of the terracotta has been the main thing. Using low-iron glass, which is a very clear, transparent glass will have a pretty strong contrast with the curtain along the rest of the building. These are visual cues that have worked for us really well. There's a real challenge at Stanford in that there's no back door. Every face of the building is seen as a primary elevation. There's a subtlety to that exercise. We've studied options for having a smaller canopy at the main entrance of this building, and it just looked like it was competing too much with this gesture at the cornice. It's a great question; we've definitely studied it a lot of different ways. At this point, this is the option we think is the best. Board Member Baltay: I'm pushing for what I was referring to earlier mostly because I'm offering you an opinion of somebody who's both familiar with the built environment but also entirely unfamiliar with the Stanford medical campus. I consistently find myself lost. Even driving there the other day, I didn't know where to turn, where to stop, which building to look at. That's because no building has a front. No building gives you a visual clue of what it is. That's something we've lost in what we call modern architecture. Really it's this kit of parts that Robert has talked about being thrown together. There is no front to this building. There is no primary façade. There is no sense to the public of what it is. That's what I'm talking about; trying to create this sense of entrances, of courtyards. I grant you that functionally there's no reason the public should be flowing into this building, even if that changes in the future with more researchers going back and forth. Visually, I find the building to be not welcoming in City of Palo Alto Page 26 the sense of it being a civic contributor to the overall medical campus. This is our role in the campus, this is how you do or don't come in or pass by. Chair Gooyer: I think that's probably one of the downfalls, that it is just a part of a larger campus. They have a tendency to blend together. Board Member Baltay: Absolutely. I fully temper my comments in that this is not just one building, it's the whole medical campus. Ask Wynne; she's been up in Seattle. The way medical things are done these days, I think the function is so powerfully overriding everything that almost every hospital has this problem. It's not a comment just about you at Stanford. That's why I was saying I don’t want to see this project held up by us causing more review and delay over something that probably isn't going to change too much anyway. Mr. Pozner: I'd really like to bring back the landscape in more detail. I think that's the good move, that's going to help tell the story a little bit better. Chair Gooyer: Go ahead, Wynne. Board Member Furth: One of the really striking things about Seattle and UW is that they sell themselves to the public and themselves as patient-centered medicine. The first thing you find is the coffee when you walk into the medical center. It's heavy emphasis—this is a clinical research building, I understand. Their clinical research buildings get a little grim. It would be possible to put a front on this building. You have this huge, stone, multiple-story thing which, in an earlier era if this was a court building, it would be a 50-foot tall copy of the Statue of Justice or something. You could put significant art by that section of the building, and we would know that's the front and that's the entry. I'm not going to hold up your project. The fact that something is serious science doesn't mean that it has to push the public away or that it has to suggest that this is only an intimidating place. I'm hoping that your very transparent glass will help on that. Maybe you have lovely, shallow steps that invite me into that doorway. I do think you need labels on these buildings, something that conveys front and entrance. I think you could do it without messing up your basic building. I leave it to you to figure it out. I do think that there are going to be a lot of people coming through there, and they're not all going to be people who work there. I hope that Stanford is trying to bring us in. One of the things that concerns me about buildings at this scale—I don't read these drawings well enough to know how it will happen—is that whatever you think about Richardson, the scale is very human. Except for the actual entry off Palm Drive, it's not an intimidating building. It doesn't have any (inaudible) presence. It's hard for me to tell how this is going to be experienced, whether it's going to be dwarfing and make me feel insignificant. Maybe it's going to make me feel, "What a great place humans have created here." Thanks. Chair Gooyer: I'm hearing two different things. I'm hearing we don't want to slow this building down and, yet, I'm hearing concern on both ends as far as an entry. Vice Chair Lew: Can I maybe suggest that the Board Members who aren't familiar with the new Medical Center maybe meet with Stanford? We went through all of these issues before with the hospital. The new hospital is going to have a café right on the ground-floor corner. They've made an effort to make it more pedestrian-friendly and to put things where they know that the pedestrians are going to be. They've done that for the whole center. Maybe that piece of information is missing from … Chair Gooyer: Which sort of matches Wynne's comment about when you walk into the medical center in Washington, the first thing you see is coffee. This is not the Medical Center again. Board Member Furth: I understand. Chair Gooyer: Again, if you want to do it that—Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 27 MOTION: Board Member Baltay: I'm happy to make a motion that we continue this project to a date uncertain with the request that we see a more complete landscape plan along Pasteur Drive. I would like to see some studies made of possible changes to the entrance of the building on the corner of Pasteur next to the oak tree. Chair Gooyer: Can I get a second on that? Vice Chair Lew: I will second. Chair Gooyer: All those in favor. Opposed. There you go. We would like to see some thought given to enhancing that concept. MOTION PASSED unanimously Mr. Pozner: Sounds good. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. We're going to take a 5-10 minute break, and then we'll be back. 5. 3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312]: Request for Architectural Review for a new Four-Story Mixed Use Project With 1,843 Square Feet of Office and Three Residential Units (4,492 Square Feet). The Applicant Also Seeks a Design Enhancement Exception to Reduce the Required Driveway Width From 20 Feet to 18 Feet and may be Required for Modifications to Standards that Require 50% of the Building Frontage to be Constructed at the Front Property Line. Environmental Assessment: Pending Further Review. Zoning District: CS. For more information please contact Adam Petersen at APetersen@m-group.us Chair Gooyer: I will bring the Board back in session. We will start with the next item. That being 3265 El Camino Real. Request for Architectural Review for a new four-story, mixed-use project with 1,843 square feet of office and three residential units that total 4,492 square feet. The applicant also seeks a Design Enhancement Exception to reduce the required driveway width from 20 feet to 18 feet and may be required for modifications to standards that require 50 percent of the building frontage to be constructed at the front property line. Environmental assessment pending further review. Zoning district: CS. Staff. Adam Petersen: Good morning, Chair Gooyer and members of the Architectural Review Board. I'm Adam Petersen from the Planning and Community Environment Department. As Chair Gooyer noted, I'm here today to present a project that proposes a mixed-use building comprised of approximately 1,800 square feet of office uses, three residential units and a mechanical lift parking system. The entitlement request for the projects include a major Architectural Review, a Design Enhancement Exception to permit a reduced width to the driveway standard and a Director's level exemption to permit a stop sign to serve as an encroachment into the clear vision triangle when exiting the site. However, I do want to emphasize that this meeting is merely to solicit the Board's comments about the architectural design and about the entitlement requests. There's no formal action being taken by the Board, no formal recommendation to the Director at this time. This project has previously been reviewed by the Board. This is the project site. It's located on El Camino Real next to the existing hotel. The site is currently undeveloped and does contain some street trees and a large mature tree towards the rear of the site. This lower picture demonstrates that it's predominantly surrounded by office and commercial buildings. There is one residential unit located in the back. Again, the entire zoning of the area is in the CS zone. This is the proposed site plan. On the left-hand side of the site plan, we have an entrance to the site from El Camino Real. You enter this site through a portico. Again, this driveway is 18 feet; the requirement is 20 feet. There is a first-floor office in the front with a second-story office above the portico here. You enter the site; this is an auto court followed by landscaping and open space with a deck area. This is the tree in the back that's being retained. There's the ground-floor office located at City of Palo Alto Page 28 the rear of the site. The applicant notes that there is the option of providing an internal staircase to connect the first-floor office to one of the residential units on the second floor. The lift parking is located here. It uses lift parking for the office use and for the residential use. There's six spaces in the garage for a total of 12 spaces, and then two service or pad-level spaces located basically just to the side of it. These are individual garage doors too, that the applicant's proposed. This is the rendering of the project and also the elevation along El Camino Real. As you can see, you enter here off of El Camino Real through the portico. This is the auto court area or the drive area. The applicant proposes using permeable paving in this area, again followed by landscaping with a deck area. The building materials consist of a stucco building with a wood paneling finish, a Spanish tile roof and recessed windows. As mentioned, staff is requesting the Architectural Review Board's comments related to a number of issues with the project. Number one, we're requesting the Architectural Review Board's comments related to the design of the building. It is subject to numerous design guidelines and standards, namely the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and then also the Architectural Review findings and the Context Based Design Criteria. As noted, there is the Design Enhancement Exception requested to reduce the driveway width from a 20-foot requirement down to 18 feet. There is the Director-level exemption to permit a stop sign instead of meeting the clear vision triangle requirements. Historically in terms of parking, the City's treated the use of mechanical systems as being tandem parking. This has been permitted for residential uses, but historically hasn't been permitted for an office use. I will say last night the Planning and Transportation Commission is evaluating that standard and is hearing that standard. Also, the project description notes the use of a live/work unit on the back office building. This use isn't defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, but the staircase is noted as optional. I do want to say the staff report also called out that the project wasn't meeting its landscape and open space requirements. The applicant came back, and in their presentation they have a revised site plan that shows the project is consistent with that. However, staff hasn't had an opportunity to review that thoroughly at this time. The applicant does have a revised site plan in their presentation. Based on this information, again staff's recommendation or request is that the ARB review the proposed project, provide comments to the applicant and continue the project to a date uncertain. Thanks. I'm available for any questions that the Board may have. Chair Gooyer: Are there any questions of staff? Board Member Baltay: A quick one, yes. I'm confused. Is this project a preliminary review or is it a formal hearing requesting a motion and action? Mr. Petersen: It's not a preliminary review. There had been a preliminary review on this, but there is no formal action. I guess the only action is to continue it to a date uncertain. Mr. Lait: If I can add a little more clarity to that. The reason it's before you this morning is because this is a project that has been on file for some time. We're interested in seeing it advance through the process to a conclusion. As I understand it, there's been some back-and-forth between staff and the applicant about some design changes. It was my perspective that rather than send the applicant back to make some other revisions to the plans, it'd be helpful to get the Board's feedback. Spending 4 more months with staff and then coming to the Board to get some additional design direction that might be counter to what the staff is suggesting seems like it's prolonging the application process. The intent here is to see if the staff concerns are aligned with the Board's and to get Board feedback so that the applicant could be working on both of those edits at the same time. Board Member Baltay: That makes sense, but I'm concerned. We're told we have three chances to hear a project. Is this one of those chances? Mr. Lait: You're correct. The Code does talk about three chances to review a project. I would say in a situation like this there has been an opportunity to consider a fourth hearing, and that would be a collaboration of the applicant's interest and the Director's support. I wouldn't see in a situation like this a problem with having an additional hearing if that was necessary. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Chair Gooyer: We have had projects where there have been more than the three. Mainly that's been something that's not ironclad. It's something that's in the best interest of the project to go ahead and have a fourth one. Based on staff, I suspect they've been going back and forth, and they want our input to get a little bit better direction as to what to tell the applicant. Board Member Baltay: I'm sure we'll be happy to provide that. Chair Gooyer: With that, is the applicant here? You have 10 minutes. Bob Iwersen: Board Members, thank you for having us here and listening to our project. My name is Bob Iwersen; I'm with Hunt Hale Jones Architects. I'm here on behalf of the DeNardi Group who is the ownership group on this project. As staff has mentioned, it's been in for a while, and we've been going back and forth. That's why it is nice to see if we can align your views and their views on a final approach to this project. As was mentioned, the site itself is in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. It's in a corridor area, the Cal-Ventura corridor area. Directly in front is El Camino. It's not one of the pedestrian nodes, but it does have—the requirements are still to create some pedestrian feel for the project. Where we've kind of run into some of the issues is street frontage. It's only required to be 50 percent, but we've been pushed towards trying to get it closer to 100 percent. Yet we still have, as you'll see, some of the issues. It's a long, narrow site with very limited access. We have to retain the curb cut. We have to retain the street tree, and we have to retain the heritage oak. There are some constraints, but within these constraints we're hoping there's lots of opportunity as well. One of the things that—we've done quite a bit of effort and engineering at this point to try to figure out how to maintain the heritage tree during construction and how the project would fit around the tree. We don't want to go down too many of those paths with a lot of heavy engineering to solve some of these issues if the project itself needs any major renovation. That said, with these constraints, that heritage oak also offers what— I just recently heard a term called wabi-sabi which is beauty in imperfection. I think we have an opportunity here in this tree's slightly towards the edge of the property line. Within the project itself, it can enhance the project as a mature element as well as something that we can see as we walk down, for those pedestrians, and have a view through the porte-cochere to the tree beyond. As you can see on there, some of the major issues we have are the 12-foot sidewalk, which gives us a 4-foot setback from our property line. We're going to require two exits for our project as well as a drive aisle. Here's the heritage oak in the back with its tree protection zone. The residential setback of 10 feet. The Travel Lodge at this point is fairly low density, but it's anticipated that everybody contextually would like to see the whole area change. INDO Restaurant which is a small, single-story restaurant next door, right along the property line. One of the items that you'll see is the planning requirements are fairly limited to us. This is the maximums we're going to be able to get as we go along. The ground-floor commercial space uses up 30 percent of our lot coverage. As we move forward, the parking becomes a major issue as far as how to make that happen. If we were to maximize every element of this project, theoretically we'd need 19 parking spaces. On a 150-foot by 50-foot lot, that would extend well beyond the property line. How are we going to handle and how can we get to what we need to create both a commercial and residential aspect? This KLAUS parking system, which is in use in the Bay Area—what we selected was— they have a few different options. This stacked parking system is manually operated. It is something that the owners can do themselves; they do not need a valet. It takes probably about 2 minutes to go the longest travel distance. It is no different than just shuffling the floor, the ground up and down. You just pull in and park like you were parking in a regular, residential, two-car garage. The issues with this is it does not—they do have another type called a puzzle lift, which can handle every type of car. This one can handle on the upper level the taller, more trucks or SUVs. We cannot handle oversized Escalades, that kind of thing, from a weight standpoint only. From width and height and length, we can handle everything except for the larger SUVs and the larger pickup trucks on this site. With that said, what we're able to do is come through the site at the required curb cut and come down and create an auto court for our parking area, over which we will put the two residential, getting that off the street and leaving the commercial leg fronting the street and stepping over the drive aisle. It's just a simple game, which is not going to be surprising from the requirements of the site. What we can do—I know one of the major issues is the visual aspects of this at the time, if nothing happens for quite a while on the Travel Lodge site, of a fairly extensively long building. What we're able to do is maybe create some City of Palo Alto Page 30 knuckles along here, a circulation knuckle, a service knuckle, that would allow us to break up the massing as well as the programmatic elements will also vary the height of the project as you see. With the two- story commercial, the 25-foot minimum along El Camino, the 50-foot maximum along this side, we don't hit that. We're quite a bit under. With a pitched roof we're still under. Our circulation aspect. Down at the other end, we're able to step down to this commercial area and a townhome above. We would like to propose possibly turning this into a live/work because it could be internal at that point. In which case, right now, one of the issues that's driving the height here is if we're trying to get to this floor and align the next flight of stairs up, we have to push this parking up higher than it actually needs to be to access this townhome from our common stair. That said, we're able to get 14 parking spaces in this as opposed to the 19, which would maximize the lot, and three residential spaces and our required commercial space. As far as precedent studies and how we would go about—one of the main issues that came up, how do you deal with a long wall and that kind of thing. Santa Barbara's City Hall seems to be a good example of a fairly long project with some massing breaks and some bundled windows in a Carthusian way. We'd like to take advantage of these kind of concepts at the residential portion especially, along that long edge. At the commercial side, this image is quite nice as far as the simplicity of the street front. Going to that whole idea of wabi-sabi, when you walk by and you see this porte-cochere and you look back, what do you see? You see a fairly usable space with the paving and such, the mews themselves and the auto court and the oak tree in the back with the deck protecting it as an amenity for the residents and the office users of the space. It's going to be an urban situation, this kind of urban condition that I'm familiar with. It can be a very elegant solution along the mews or the auto court. Chair Gooyer: If you could speed it up, it's … Mr. Iwersen: How we ended up with—basically we kind of stuck with a more traditional aspect and tried to deal with some of the solar issues and such with large overhangs and deep, recessed windows to give a little texture to the street façade. At this point, just trying to get some—one thing we will take advantage of is a fire access along here and get some lighting throughout so we can have light from both sides and air and circulation on both sides of all the units throughout the project and create some nice actual views into the interior courtyard and access to the tree. This would be limited access for the windows, but we can bundle them and get some larger openings in that space. With that, I guess I can answer questions and we can go forward on this. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? Board Member Kim: I have a couple of questions. Chair Gooyer: Go ahead. Board Member Kim: I'm just asking for some clarification on the loft condition at the office space in the very back. If it were to become a live/work space, that stair would essentially lead to the residential unit that's directly above? Mr. Iwersen: Yes, it would. Board Member Kim: I noticed on the floor plans when you're describing with different colors the square footages and associated with what they go to, it seems to me that on the third-level plan for Unit 2 there's a powder room and some additional area there that perhaps should be yellow, that's shown in brown right now as circulation space. Mr. Iwersen: That can easily be a mistake on—the calculations are correct. The graphics might be a little bit off on that one. Board Member Kim: Do the calculations then … Chair Gooyer: The foyer and the bathroom should be part of the … City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Kim: Do the calculations take into account the foyer as circulation space or as residential space? Mr. Iwersen: The foyer is circulation space. Board Member Kim: Those … Mr. Iwersen: That's not part of the unit. Board Member Kim: Those are my questions. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? Alex, go ahead. Vice Chair Lew: Could you explain the rationale for not including an elevator in the project? Mr. Iwersen: At this point, we think it's maybe only serving two units. Therefore, it would be a budget issue. If we want to put one in, we could go back and do that. At this point in time, servicing just two units, we didn't know if it was necessary. Vice Chair Lew: If you're not familiar, Palo Alto does have a very large elevator requirement. (crosstalk) Mr. Iwersen: The gurney. I am familiar with that. I know that we'd have to use a gurney elevator in this particular case. There is a spatial aspect to that one too. We are tight throughout the whole site. Adding a fairly large elevator might—we could probably squeeze it in, but we'll see. Vice Chair Lew: One last question. You did talk a little bit about the stacked KLAUS lifts versus the puzzle lifts. I did see in the packet some of the rationale for that. I was wondering if there was a reason not to use the puzzle lifts. Mr. Iwersen: There's a couple of reasons. One is these stacked parking systems are more reliable. From a user standpoint, if the puzzle lift breaks down, you have 11 people who don't have access. Apparently, they break down a little bit more often. The other aspect of it is we'd lose one space with the puzzle lift. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. Board Member Baltay: Robert. Chair Gooyer: Yeah. Board Member Baltay: One more question just occurred to me. Have you explored putting an underground parking garage of some kind in here? Have you sketched it out to see what's possible? Mr. Iwersen: Yeah. It's the same issue. We did look at that. How would we have the oak tree, for one, at the other end? Trying to get down anywhere in that distance without the oak tree is not feasible or possible. Board Member Baltay: Can I ask a question of staff, of Dave Dockter? Dave, the oak tree in the back, as I can tell, is about a 30-inch diameter valley oak tree. That's considered to be a heritage tree by the City ordinance. Is it possible for the applicant to petition to remove that tree and what would the process be? Mr. Dockter: There's an existing process to remove a healthy valley oak. It needs to meet the criteria. Generally it would need to be dead, dying or hazardous, ready to fall apart or wreck something. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Chair Gooyer: Can I interject one question I had while you're talking about that anyway? The thing looks pretty butchered up on one side at the property line. Has that affected the longevity of the tree? Mr. Dockter: I'm not sure of any current changes to the tree. I've heard that it has been recently pruned. We need to look into that. As of this meeting, we should be looking at the tree with how they've designed and engineered their whole site plan to accommodate the tree. If the tree were to remain, they've come up with an engineering solution to protect it. That's their first obligation. Garages, site planning, all of that would come outside of that first obligation, which is to preserve, keep the tree, with their designs. Back to Mr. Baltay's question. To remove the tree, we would have to evaluate if pruning ruined and killed the tree. That's a whole separate issue from the development project. We'll deal with that separately from this project. I think we should strategize for that. For the tree protection—let me have you rephrase it, Mr. Baltay. Where are you going with this? Board Member Baltay: If the applicant wanted to remove the tree or if we felt removing the tree was in the better overall interest of the project, it allowed other parameters that we're concerned about to happen, is that possible? Is there room in the Code for that tree to be removed with certain conditions being met? Mr. Dockter: Yes, it is possible. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Dockter: They can apply for that, and it would be evaluated on its own merits with the state of the tree, the way it is now. We would have to follow up with Code enforcement and other issues. If the tree were condemned and somehow went missing, that's a violation to the City Municipal Code that affects the entire community, not just this property owner. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the public that would like to address this Board on this project? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back. Basically you're saying that even with the tree being sort of drastically cut on one side, it seemed like the part that hangs over the property line is in healthy condition at the moment? Mr. Lait: If I could just … We haven't observed the tree in the condition that you've described. We learned about that yesterday. I think today Dave was going to go out there and do an inspection. Our analysis up to this point has been based on what the applicant has submitted, which is a … Chair Gooyer: At this point, you're assuming it's a good healthy tree? Mr. Lait: That's correct. Chair Gooyer: That would change if you make some other determination. Thank you. Let's see. Why don't we start with—who's next? Wynne. Board Member Furth: I was hoping you would start with somebody who has more experience with mechanical lifts for parking. I had one question for staff. When we're figuring out how many jobs office space generates, how many jobs would this office space generate? It's 1,800 square feet. I forget what it is, 1 per 250? Mr. Lait: In terms of parking requirements, it's based … Board Member Furth: No, it's not parking. I'm talking about people. Mr. Lait: I don't have the jobs number. I don't know that off the top of my head. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board Member Furth: Parking is 250 is the assumption, right? Mr. Lait: Yes, but that's employees of all sorts. Board Member Furth: You understand what I was trying to figure out, what this does to the famous jobs/housing balance. I'd like that information at some point. It's a very difficult site. Was this owned under the same ownership as the Travel Lodge? Mr. Iwersen: I believe it was. Board Member Furth: It's left us with a fragment here. I feel that it's hard for you and it's hard for the City to get a good project on a major street with such a narrow frontage, with your other constraints. I'm concerned about the narrow driveway. One of my questions is how would, which seems to be a big issue today, trash collection work? Would this involve the trash trucks coming in off the street and backing out? Can they turn around? How would that work? Mr. Iwersen: They would be pulled out for service. We could set up a staging area for them. Board Member Furth: This would be on El Camino? I'm trying to figure out how that actually works. We keep coming up against this on projects which are on heavily traveled streets and sidewalks. Mr. Iwersen: Currently there are two locations. There's the residential. They would be only carts. This obviously is not a large project. We wouldn't have bins. Let's see if I can find the site plan. The residential garbage are carts right here. Board Member Furth: Just like any residential user. Mr. Iwersen: We would assume we could pull them over and stage them possibly right here. They'd come in and pick them up and pull them in. The other garbage for the commercial is right here or one of these spots. They could also just come in, grab them and go on out. Board Member Furth: You're not talking about the bigger bins that we see in … Mr. Iwersen: No, no. We're talking carts, carts only for this project. Board Member Furth: It's just small. I'm also concerned about the clear vision triangle. I think it's a big issue here. Mr. Iwersen: We've solved that one actually since … Board Member Furth: Good. Tell me about it. Mr. Iwersen: I think that's going to go to the front façade a little bit. It's not resolved yet. From a planning standpoint, the 18-foot exception they're talking about is just right here. That's to give a little bit of wall to the project on this side where the curb cut comes in. We're really kind of taking from the 20 feet right along this edge. If we pull back our pedestrian corner here, we can actually get the vision triangle to here. It's still within our property line. We originally had it out here on our property line and some planters over here. Apparently we were told that, even though planters are allowed in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, Public Works does not allow them. We were going to use the vision triangle outside; now we've moved it back into here. That would affect the front façade to a point. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I find myself concerned about what I think of as toward San Francisco frontage, that it's not softened as far as I can tell by landscaping at all. I'm interested in my colleagues' City of Palo Alto Page 34 comments on the practicality of the parking approach. If I were driving in as a customer to the office, where would I go? I would use one of these lifts? Mr. Iwersen: Yeah, you'd use one of these lifts. Those lifts are really no different. It's really just changing the ground level. You turn a key, and they go up and they come back down. You just pull in as if you're in a residential garage. Board Member Furth: There's a number to call if something goes wrong? Mr. Iwersen: There is. They service them twice a year. Like I said, these apparently are—my understanding is they are very reliable as opposed to the puzzle lift, which can be a little less reliable. Board Member Furth: I also was struck by the long distance between the bedroom and the fire egress, the staircases. Explain to me the sprinklering in the project, the fire safety. Mr. Iwersen: (crosstalk) 13, but we meet the exit access requirements. Board Member Furth: I know you do. I just want to understand—is the building fully sprinklered? Mr. Iwersen: It would be. Board Member Furth: I'm the non-architect member of the Board. Mr. Iwersen: It'll be required. It's an NFPA-13 system, which is the higher-end system. It'd be required. Yes, it would be in this building. Board Member Furth: The windows that face on El Camino Real, are they fixed, are they casement, how do they work? Mr. Iwersen: This would be operable and casement in this particular case. Board Member Furth: I'm interested in hearing from my colleagues—I'm sorry I went first—about how you think this actually would work. It's terribly parking driven. I am always happy … Chair Gooyer: Let me do this for you. Would you prefer that … Board Member Furth: Send it to you? Yes, you guys go first, and I'll chime in later. Chair Gooyer: That's what I figured. Sounds good. Board Member Furth: (inaudible) information. Chair Gooyer: No problem. Peter, why don't you … Board Member Baltay: Thanks. I have a number of problems with this project, I'm sorry to say. I don't see the pieces fitting together. I think it's not entirely the applicant's issue. I think some of the regulations the City has are just making it next to impossible to develop this project in any reasonable way, not to mention what he wants to do. I also think there's some issues with the architecture itself. The palette of materials is just not working and the overall massing, which is probably driven by the parking and the tree, isn't working either. Let me start with the issue of the tree and the parking. I think the lifts don't work. I don't think it's realistic that somebody is going to wait 2 minutes for their car to go up and down and hope the machine doesn't break and figure out how to get a key, do all these things. I find that's right now not in the Code, certainly not for office work, even for residential stuff in this environment. I don't buy it, and I find it very difficult to support that. In addition, the three-stack lift requires a two-story space for the parking. That fights against all desires to have pedestrian-friendly, City of Palo Alto Page 35 residential access. The houses are then three stories up before you start, because of a parking garage. There's no way you can make the building look nice towards the Travel Lodge, as you showed in the pictures of Santa Barbara, because you're not going to have windows where the parking is. It's just the parking is driving too much. I think the answer is to put the parking underground. It's been done many times in Palo Alto. Consistently when we get a project back where you put it underground, it lets you develop the site in a humanly friendly way. I think unfortunately with the oak tree that we have right now, it's not possible. The tree removes the possibility of putting the parking underground. Therefore, your hands are tied as an applicant because the City has these fairly strict requirements. In this case, when I was out looking at the property—we'll have that confirmed by Dave Dockter I think—the tree has been badly pruned on one side. It may not be that healthy right now. I would think as an applicant it's the kind of thing where it's incumbent upon you to put forward a stronger statement to the City. In order for us to develop this properly, we need to get the parking below ground. In order to do that, the tree has to go. We're letting an old oak tree in the back corner of this property, which has been badly pruned—it's not visible from hardly anyone except the people on this property—drive what is a very large development on El Camino. I think the City needs to think about whether that's a real balance that we want to have. If we can reconsider that, I think the project can be better developed. The same thing perhaps applies to the number of parking places required. As Wynne mentioned, this is a difficult lot to develop. Any one of us would say it's really tough to scratch your head and see how it comes together. For us to request that he have so many parking places here in order to get these housing units that we so desperately want, maybe it's also room for the applicant to petition for some relief from some of the parking. There are mechanisms within the Code that you can do that. I'm pushing for at a high level—you're asking us how do we feel about this. At least from my point of view, the City needs to grant him some relief on the tree and the parking. The applicant needs to consider putting the parking underground for me to see this project coming together. Otherwise, I just don't see the pieces working for us to make those findings. I'm trying to be forceful about it because I know that you just want to hear what we really think, rather than wait for four hearings and a year of time and architect's fees going by, to find out the same thing. I really feel strongly that the tree is a condition where it should not be allowed to drive the entire project. Mr. Iwersen: We have been told numerous times throughout here that there will be no variances allowed on any conditions. We've tried to work with what the Zoning Code has put forth. Board Member Baltay: I'm a practicing architect in Palo Alto. I know exactly what you've been hearing. My comments are as much directed to the staff. Without some flexibility, we're letting an old oak tree drive a new building on El Camino in a way that's detrimental. If you think about that façade next to the Travel Lodge, it's next to 40 feet tall right next to a parking lot. That will be seen from a quarter mile away. It's not a matter of architectural trickery to make it good. We need to allow him a chance to step the building back from the property line, to modulate it, to do all these other things that our Codes and design guidelines want. It is impossible without changing the way the parking is done, which is driven by the tree. The staff needs to consider a larger, holistic approach as we evaluate what can be done. The applicant doesn't even know that he can try to push for that. You want our opinion; that's what we're here for. All that said, I think that it's very important for residential stuff to have a pedestrian-friendly sense about it. I just can't imagine my wife bringing our kids home through this arcade, looking up at two stories of blank wall where there's a garage past another door to get into this lobby and go up two sets of stairs to the residences. It just doesn't work. It's not residential feeling. It's not designed to be pedestrian-friendly. So much of that comes from modulating the architecture and modulating the site plan, the way you do the parking. It's just not working here. There's no sense for people walking along El Camino, where you could sit down for a second, where you could take a breather, understand where you are. All these pedestrian-friendly things we keep talking about, we have in our design guidelines now and need to be considered. I'm afraid I don't see them happening here. When I look at the architecture itself, I understand that you've picked some sort of a vaguely Mediterranean architectural style. Yet, I see a hipped roof, a gable roof. I see four or five different types of façade treatment. Up above is a band with some wood battens and a flat piece of stucco. Another middle piece of the entrance with more articulation. It's just all over the map. You've got so many architectural styles going on. I find it really dissonant. The way you're treating the windows is not in the least bit Mediterranean. City of Palo Alto Page 36 These are large, single-pane pieces of glass as best I can tell, fairly flush out to the surface. It's really just not working from a basic architectural vocabulary. You've got too much going on without enough understanding of where it's going. Lastly on the landscaping side of it, I just don't see how you could even propose to us a project without some buffering along the property line where the Travel Lodge is. That poor facility here will have a 40-foot blank wall right next to it. If you've been following at all what we're doing, we pretty much gave a hotel a tough time where they were proposing—this is over on San Antonio. They were too tall next to the rest of the community. This is a much larger violation of that. I don't even see any evidence of landscaping or any efforts to modulate that impact. Mr. Iwersen: From a practical—excuse me. Chair Gooyer: I tell you what (crosstalk). Board Member Baltay: I think that the landscaping just has to consider that. Chair Gooyer: We don't need responses. He's just giving you … Board Member Baltay: The landscaping just really needs to consider the impact on adjacent properties. In this case, there's just nothing here. I'll leave it at that. I'm eager to hear what everybody else thinks. Chair Gooyer: Kyu. Board Member Kim: I also really question the parking in addition to everything Board Member Baltay has just mentioned about the parking. I just don't see how—let's say a neighbor and you get home at the same time, and they're on a different floor of the lift. I'm not even convinced that the garage door is going to work with the lift system. I think too much of this has been based upon the parking design. I also agree that there just has to be something done to make it more feasible. With regards to the overall design of the architecture, I agree. There needs to be a total look at the project as a whole. Throughout the drawings I found several inconsistencies, through the roof plan and the elevations. I also think that the building really has to be designed in 3-D as opposed to just doing two-dimensional drawings. I say that because there are several missing views that we need to see and be convinced that this building is going to work. Such views as a pedestrian perspective through the porte-cochere, through this mew that you're telling us that you're creating. I don't think the elevation of that façade straight-on is enough for me to be convinced that that's an elegant and pedestrian-friendly façade that people will see as they're entering the building. Overall from the street, from El Camino, I just don't see how this building is much different than, let's say, something like the Stanford Motor Inn across Lambert. It's got the car entry and an office to the left. Palo Alto deserves something a little bit nicer than what the standard examples have been. Again, that's not necessarily your fault, but it's the parking that's driving that. In addition to that, with the elevations, with these bays that are sticking out, there doesn't seem to be a real rhythm to them. I think they're a little bit arbitrary, and they're just based upon the width of the room. Perhaps there could be a little bit more attention paid to making those bays the same width to set a standard rhythm. I'm also looking at the elevation from the auto court. My eye doesn't necessarily draw me to the entry. Something that was said by another Board Member on the previous project was that we need to have these visual cues for wayfinding. I'm just not convinced that that's happening right now. I'm also concerned about the pedestrian walk from El Camino. It sounds like you're perhaps redesigning that to make it work with the view triangle. If you have a guest or if you're walking home, that just seems like an awfully dark, little tunnel or passageway that's not even open to the drive aisle right next to it. There are a lot of things that need to be looked at. I know that the process can be grueling, but perhaps there can be an overall review of the project in-house by your design team. I'm sure there can be things that can be re-thought. This is another one of those sites in Palo Alto that's way underutilized. I really look forward to a nice building on this site. This is part of the passage in getting there, but I encourage another overall look at the design and the layout of the project. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Alex. City of Palo Alto Page 37 Vice Chair Lew: I also have problems with this project. The 50-foot wide lot is a huge issue. You show in your photos a picture of a Dan Solomon project. I used to work for him. Mr. Iwersen: Of who? Vice Chair Lew: Dan Solomon. I think you're showing the Fulton Grove project. He did some really amazing projects on 50-foot lots, but in San Francisco there's no parking requirement. They have a parking maximum, not a minimum. You have a challenging … Our South El Camino Design Guidelines suggest that some of these lots are not usable unless they're merged together to form a larger lot. That's probably the case. I would say there are projects that are recently built, mixed-use projects on El Camino that are narrower, that have worked and have gotten approval. There's a Ken Hayes project in the 1800 block of El Camino. I would encourage you to take a look at that one. That one did not have to deal with an oak tree. I think it had driveway issues with the width. We also have some projects Downtown. In Downtown we have a shared parking assessment district. We have some projects here that use turntables. We have projects that use car elevators so that they can get rid of the ramp. There are other things that I would hope you would consider. I don't know if they're viable options or not. I would want to see them just to see what other possibilities might be possible. I've seen the parking lifts used in Berkeley. I do understand there's some issues with some of the puzzle lifts. I think I have a preference for the puzzle lifts if you're going to use the lift system, mostly because you can bring the overall height of the building down. All that extra space that you've got—it's almost like a residential floor. You would be able to bring the building from a perceived mass of four floors down to three. I think that would help. I think I'd want to at least see a study of that. I think that could help a lot. Again, the next time we meet with staff, I want to see an opinion about that valley oak tree. I share the other Board Members' comments about the architectural style of the building. I've seen some of your other work, and I don't have an issue with traditional styles at all. I think you've done nice, very fine projects. I think the awkwardness of the parking lift is driving some odd things. The actual height is causing you to do some unusual things there. The interior of the units isn't really so much the ARB's purview. I would just say that we have other units in Downtown, tall, three-story townhouses. They all have private elevators. That's sort of the market. The prices here are staggering, and people do expect amenities. Having a four-floor walkup unit, to me, is not desirable. You've got a challenging project, for sure. I don't think it'd be able to meet the findings as it is currently proposed. Chair Gooyer: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Now that I've had the benefits of your commentary. It strikes me that every time we've seen a mixed-use project, which solves a parking shortage as defined by the City's Codes with above-ground parking, we end up saying no because you get a building that's too large for the site, if they're going to accommodate the desired use. I trust that we haven't zoned these properties so they're completely unusable. That would be inverse condemnation. I agree that it's not possible to get even close to the theoretical maximum as long as we're requiring this kind of parking and you don't go underground. Is the legal analysis that this would be a form of tandem parking that can be approved if it works well? Mr. Lait: The City doesn't have any standards for parking lifts. They have … Board Member Furth: Which means that we essentially don't allow them, right? Mr. Lait: They have been allowed. They've been approved by this Board and also City Council on appeal and also through a site and design. Last night, the Planning and Transportation Commission considered an amendment to the Code so that we can have some clarity on that issue. That's going to go forward to the City Council in January or February next year, so that we can get some standards in place. Board Member Furth: Right now, we must be sort of bootstrapping with the tandem definition, which is fairly vague. It does require a finding that it will work conveniently. I find the idea of unattended mechanical parking systems in a project of this size not convenient or reliable or feasible at this point. I City of Palo Alto Page 38 also think by pushing the residential units up high, you do two things. One is you get that great big wall. The other one is you don't get the kind of residential, close-to-the-ground uses we're looking for. I'm also concerned about effective, usable outdoor space and landscaping. We've looked at some other projects—I think of the one on Forest—which have residential uses and the need for a lot of car access. Where is the safe place for a child, if I have to leave a child outside for 5 minutes while I run back to get something up the stairs? Where is the area that is gated, fenced, at least minimally set apart so that that residential use is supported? I wouldn't be able to approve it as it's presented. I tend to agree that it's to be hoped that the City's thinking through of its zoning standards might get us some better results. The sad thing is that this property has been split off for another and is leaving a very difficult remnant. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I guess I'm pretty much in agreement with pretty much all the other members here. When I first saw this, without even looking at any of the literature, to me it looked like an addition to the Travel Lodge. There are just sometimes sites that—I understand the criteria you have are very difficult. There are sometimes just sites that are not able to be developed. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that this, at least the development you have here, just isn't going to work. You show us things; you say the Santa Barbara City Hall gave you sort of the design criteria. I'm looking at the front sheet of this, C-1, that has no reminiscence of the Santa Barbara City Hall at all. It was mentioned before. There are four or five different architectural styles, all kinds of roof framing—I should say variations. I think the parking is what's killing you, the whole use of the ramps. I have seen elevators for cars work. Even those get to be difficult. This is just a very complex site. Having said that, I pretty much have to agree with my fellow Board Members here. There need to be some major changes made on this. Maybe that even means that the whole concept of the project gets changed, where it isn't mixed use, it's just housing or something or just commercial or something. The development that I see here, there's no way I could support that. Do you have some questions? Mr. Iwersen: Yeah, I do have some questions. I'm just wondering as far as contextually what's going to happen down the road. I know we're concerned about the height, and we're concerned about it not being a more suburban residential feel. Is it acceptable to go down the road of it being a more urban situation? In the future there will be another building next to that, that is going to rival the height of it. Therefore, the height is not going to be an issue, and the blank of that wall is not going to be an issue on the lower part. If that's the goal—if the design guidelines are allowing us to go to 50 feet and we are allowed to go property line to property line, is this going to be something along those lines, an urban feel down the line? What is the goal of … Chair Gooyer: To answer that, it's usually—I've used that here before. I agree completely there may be at some time in the future three or four buildings in a row that are all 40-plus feet high or 50 feet high. That may be the case. The problem is this one is the first one on the block. The reality of it is if this goes up, for instance, just the way it is, the person next to you wouldn't be able to do 40 or 50 feet, because it would basically block off every window that you've got. It would be a difficulty right there. This is not really attuned to being the first one of a large urban portion with the assumption—if that's the case, you'd make that a whole blank wall. Let's face it, nobody would let you build that even with the concept of saying theoretically 20 years from now there may be a building right next to it that would eliminate that blank wall. That just isn't going to happen. If it's an infill, that's different. This isn't; this is the first one of its kind. Like I said, I think all of us are sympathetic to the fact you've got so many things working against you at this point. We're not saying it isn't a decent attempt at it. You could improve the architecture to make it much more residential in feel. Let's face it, there are plenty of projects, even what you've showed us, that are in an urban environment but yet have a residential feel to them. Unfortunately, this isn't really in a "urban" setting at the moment, because it's the tallest thing in the area. Yet, it still doesn't have a residential feel to it. I'm not saying that we wouldn't look at anything that you do on this project—I should say we're not telling you this is not developable. All I'm saying is you've got so many things that you need to work at that it's very difficult. Unfortunately, we're not going to accept something that isn't up to what we feel are certain standards just because it has a lot of problems developing it. I understand that makes it difficult for you, but that's not our purview. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Mr. Iwersen: Is it possible that simply through a more coherent skin and design elements that a project of this scope and size could work? Chair Gooyer: I'm not saying that a project of this scope and size couldn't work. It's just not in this format. I'm not saying that you couldn't put three residential units and two office spaces on a property like this, but not if it looks like this. Vice Chair Lew: Can I make a suggestion? We do have a huge number of projects in the works in this vicinity. We have a new hotel coming up right at the Parmani Hotel site. We have the big mixed-use project at the Foot Locker site as well as a big mixed-use project on the Mike's Bikes site. They're not adjacent to this particular project. Maybe we should see these altogether in a streetscape elevation or something, so that we can accurately gauge how it looks with the neighborhood. Chair Gooyer: Then the average person in the City would be able to understand what it would look like when they're all finished, and it doesn't all of a sudden—also maybe it'll give you some idea 5 years from now of the context of what's been approved or will be built. Unfortunately the only thing to relate to it at the moment is the Travel Lodge. Let's face it, that's not the ideal thing we're looking for as something to relate to. It does unfortunately just because it's the only thing there. That's at least better than the restaurant next door, which is just a box. It's difficult on your part, but I'm sure the City would be able to let you look—it's online—to be able to see what those buildings look like. Seeing as it's in the process, it's public record at this point. You can get a relationship to see what would be there 5 years from now. Yes? Board Member Furth: If we're talking about design, we have some fairly successful both commercial and residential buildings further north on El Camino and on Alma, which do use vaguely Mediterranean elements in the sense that they have heavy stucco, dark metal windows, recessed windows that give a lot of interest to the surface of the building. They have red tile roofs. I think it can be done. They seem to have more significant landscaping, and they have a lot of curve, I guess you'd have to say. They tend to be a bit simpler. Maybe pastiche is an unfair word, but I have a sense of too many elements that don't, at least in these drawings, convince me that there's … Chair Gooyer: They fight each other. Board Member Furth: … a coherence here. Some of them are simpler. This is a high-speed road, so people read this building fast. I guess it's a moderate-speed road. I think the El Camino elevation does unfortunately look way too much like a motel as it presently exists. I suspect it could be a lot more successful. Chair Gooyer: I think all of us will probably tell you the same thing. If you came up with something that looked very Mediterranean but was done nicely and all the four sides relate to that, I would have no problem approving something like that. It's not the issue. It's not that it has to be modern or it has to look just like the hotel that's going up a block down the street. That's not it at all. I'm just saying maybe that will give you some concept. If this did end up looking, as you said, like the Santa Barbara City Hall on all four sides, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it doesn't. That's the difficulty that you're having. There's just way too much. Sometimes simple is the best solution. Mr. Iwersen: I agree with that. My question is then if we come back with something that is more architecturally appealing and coherent, are we still fighting a battle of scale and the lack of the residential units being in a more ground-floor, yard aspect kind of thing? Chair Gooyer: Maybe you're a bit gun shy at this point, which I can understand. Having lived in a lot of urban, densely populated areas, there's some very residential-looking high-rise buildings that I've lived in, that I would have no qualms. This is actually very small in scale. I have no problem with a 50-foot building if it's done well. If it's done well, then it becomes an impetus for the neighbors to go, "Look at that. They built something a little bit bigger, and it's a nice looking building. It was approved to do City of Palo Alto Page 40 that." I don't think that's the issue. It's just only one of the items. The first thing that people are going to respond to is what it looks like. Obviously the problem you have is there are a lot of other issues that are affecting what it looks like. If you conquer what it looks like, that's a big step in the right direction. Mr. Iwersen: One of the comments that came up was the feel as you walk towards the residential entrance, as you go by the garage doors and go by the parking areas, that that didn't feel quite right. That possibly could never go away. Chair Gooyer: Think of it this way. I've been warned of that before. We're not here to design it for you. We're just telling you basically that we don't like what's here. If you come back with something totally different, not just changing the color or the roof slope a little bit, I'm talking about a major redesign, I'm not saying that we wouldn't approve it. Like I said, I'm also not going to sit here and design it for you and say, "If you do this, I'll accept it." With that … Vice Chair Lew: I just wanted to … Chair Gooyer: Sure. Vice Chair Lew: … rebut a couple of things that Board Members have said. One is you were suggesting maybe an all residential project. Our zoning doesn't allow that. Chair Gooyer: I understand that. I'm saying that would make it look more residential. I'm not saying, again that that's the right thing for this. Vice Chair Lew: We don't need to beat a dead horse, but that was what I heard. I just want to make sure—they have to have a commercial component as required by our zoning. Wynne, I think you had mentioned how would an office visitor use a parking lift. Our design guidelines suggest that visitors park on the street. I actually don't have an issue with office—if it's a small office and really one office, I think they can figure out how to use a lift. If you have a multi-tenant building and what not and there isn't an organization about how people use the lifts, then I could have issues with it on a larger scale. I think it's viable on a small project, especially if it's just one tenant. I did want to mention on the live/work, it's sort of my experience here in Palo Alto that whenever we have the live/work, the live disappears and it's just all office. That's sort of the general sentiment in this town. I would just say be careful on that going forward. I know other cities do it, Emeryville. I've seen it in Oakland and whatnot. We've tried it on some projects here. In the end, all the live—there's one on El Camino, in the 1800 block. All the living got converted to work. Chair Gooyer: We've still got one more item. Thank you very much. Mr. Iwersen: Thank you. Appreciate it. 6. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER. 2600 El Camino Real [16PLN-00022]: Recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for Approval of an Architectural Review Application to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Six-Story Commercial Building and Construction of a New Four-Story, 62,616 Square Foot Commercial Building; no new Floor Area is Being Requested. Environmental Assessment: Consistent With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Project is Exempt From Further Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15302 (Class 2), Which Allows for the Replacement of Structures With Substantially the Same Purpose and Capacity. Zoning District: CS. For more information please contact Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us Chair Gooyer: The next item, also a public hearing. Recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval of an Architectural Review application to allow the demolition of an existing six-story commercial building and construction of a new four-story, 62,616-square-foot commercial building. No new floor area is being requested. Environmental assessment: consistent with City of Palo Alto Page 41 the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. The project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15302, Class 2, which allows for the replacement of structures with substantially the same purpose and capacity. Zoning district CS. Staff. Sheldon Ah Sing: Thank you. Just about good afternoon. I'll try to be as expeditious as possible. Thank you for your time this morning on these important projects. The gist of it is the existing building there onsite is nonconforming with respect to parking, height and the size of the building. You have a new project that's coming in, that's using the City Zoning Code's nonconforming section to replace the building. In doing so, they're allowed to replace the building in the same size and floor area ratio, but all other aspects of the Zoning Code needs to be met. That's what the case is for this project. Some of the issues for the project would be the architectural design and the context of the surrounding and meeting those architectural findings and also meeting the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The project did go before this Board previously as a preliminary item. There were several things that the Board had mentioned for direction. There was a height exception to the building; in response to that, the height of the building was reduced to meet the Code for that zoning district. There's some concern about ceiling heights. The ceiling heights that are proposed are 10-foot ceilings. There is some opportunity at the first floor—if you leave the ducts exposed, then you have maybe 12-foot-6 for that small retail space that's being proposed there. There was some concern about a relation to the street and also to the adjacent building. The overhangs—I'll illustrate that in the next slide—were reduced along the sides adjacent to the new mixed-use building that's just about completed as well as they've created a plaza area in the front, which is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, trying to activate that pedestrian area. Finally, there's some concern about pedestrian circulation on the site. The applicant has made some changes with the plaza and will in their presentation discuss a little bit more about how they can improve even upon what they proposed today with their circulation. Here's what I was demonstrating. The image above shows that overhang that the comment was it looked a little excessive. Below, what's proposed now. It's not as extensive there. The relationship to the mixed-use building, you do have those balconies on the side that kind of create—instead of having glass, for instance, are all stone. It's sort of some setback there. You can see the difference between the front of the buildings from the previously proposed in the bottom, where they are creating that build-to setback as well as creating that plaza area in the front. What's worth mentioning in the site plan is they are maintaining the basement parking. They're not touching that. This is an area that is over the hazardous plume area, so that is a barrier that will be kept in place. There are four mature trees that would remain on the site. That was something that we had worked hard with the applicant on. That caused the project to have some other onsite parking changes. Some of those would be to create a two-level parking deck in the back. They did accommodate a loading space as required by the Code. With these changes, the site meets the landscaping and also the parking requirements. With maintaining those trees at the front, there was some concern early on about the sight distance; there are a lot of pedestrians going through there. It does meet the Code. There was a traffic memorandum that was created and demonstrates that it does meet the Code there. The recommendation of the traffic study was to include a stop sign, and that would be the result of that. There will also be a median improvement for El Camino just to discourage people from making that left out of the site. That would be an improvement. There's also public art that's being proposed on the site as opposed to paying an in-lieu fee. The project does include about 1,400, 1,500 square feet of amenity space that's not counted towards the gross floor area. That is a gym and locker amenity for the employees. This is just some brief elevations—the applicant does have more substantial—just to show you what the new proposal is with the front as well as the rear. The context, having the soccer fields nearby and the new building next door. For an environmental review, this would be considered under the replacement exemption, because it is replacing at substantially the same size, substantially the same use. Therefore, we can make those findings. There are no impacts to the cultural resources. There's a Cultural Resource Evaluation as part of this report. No impacts with respect to any hazards. The motion here is to recommend approval of the commercial project based on the findings and subject to the conclusions of approval. That concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions. The applicant's also here with their presentation. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Go ahead. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Vice Chair Lew: Thank you, Sheldon. With the stop sign requirement at the driveway, is there any consideration of how that would actually work? There's the big planter there. How do you get a stop sign in on the easternmost driveway if there's this big planter and there's nowhere to put a pole and the driveway is already the required width? It seems like you can get it on the west side; towards the Mayfield housing there's space, but it doesn't seem like it's going to work on the other side. Mr. Ah Sing: I think it's going to be based on the particular detail of the site. It may not be a standard configuration of the pole maybe directly into the ground, but maybe some other way that a stop sign would work. Vice Chair Lew: The existing conditions have a speed bump. Is that allowed? Is that an option? I think there's a speed bump there now. Mr. Ah Sing: There wasn't any comment to remove that. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? Seeing none, the applicant would like to give a presentation. You'll have 10 minutes. Applicant: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: That's all right. We'll hold off until they get the … Go ahead. Applicant: Thank you, Sheldon. Thank you, ARB members, for hearing us again. When last we met, there was a good conversation. You guys had a lot of good suggestions. Those suggestions have been incorporated into the plans after a lot of deliberation. There's a lot of positive things that have come out of those suggestions. We've also been working with staff, all the departments and also been meeting with College Terrace and the neighbors. Some good changes have come out of that, out of the development of the plans. I just want to orient some things real briefly that are important to the design. We've got the Page Mill intersection and the soccer fields, which are the large-scale items of the urban fabric. To the left we have the almost completed Stanford housing, which is a three-story project adjacent to us, and then office in the back. I want to remind everybody that this is a replacement project. We are coming in with exactly the same FAR and actually all the same uses, which include office, institutional financial services or bank, and retail. We're actually increasing the square footage of retail space. We are also doing some things that are changing for the project. The project right now is a six-story high rise which does not comply with the height limitations. We're coming in with a four-story building. This diagram here also diagrams some other deficiencies. Right now, they're 56 stalls below the actual ordinance, and we're going to be fixing that and actually accounting for the food use in the retail parking. We are 31 feet above the height limit. We're obviously going to be down to 50 feet. That was one of the comments. We went from 52 feet to 50 feet. That will be in full compliance. Also, currently we have single, one-way drives around the project, which basically dumps traffic—if you can't find a space, you've got to go back into the street. It's causing congestion there. We're fixing that with two-way parking. The end of all that is we're coming in with a very refined project that is completely compliant with all of the Codes for the City ordinance. This site plan showing our project with the adjacent Stanford housing. The building now relates to the street except, in addition to that, it's also creating a public courtyard facing the street that's going to house the food retail use that's right off the lobby. In back of the building, where there's currently just parking, we're placing another publicly accessible space. You can either go around the building or you can go through the building to access that space. If you add those two spaces together, those public access spaces are actually larger than the current plaza spaces that's currently there on the second floor with obviously the added benefit that this public space, especially the one towards the street, is completely integrated and adding vibrancy and activity to the street. Behind that space in the back, we've got the two-level parking structure. I want to describe a little bit more into that. When we saved the four planters, that was at the request of Dave Dockter. We thought that was a beneficial item. I just want to point out that those are not protected City of Palo Alto Page 43 trees, and those are not heritage trees either, but we do think it's a benefit. That made us reorganize the site entirely. The other big changes is we came in—the minimum landscape is 10 percent; that's required. We came in last time with 20 percent; we're now at almost 30 percent. We've increased that because we knew that was going to be beneficial to the project. We've got additional planting, additional trees and landscape. The other item is—let's see. Moving on to the garage. As Sheldon mentioned, we're leaving the garage as is, but we have additional bike storage both down in the garage and up on the plaza space. This is a plan which shows on the left side the financial services, bank. On the upper-right corner, that's where the retail would be. We've increased that to 1,000 square feet and parked it. That added an additional seven stalls. We went from 251 stalls to 258. The red-hatched item is our amenity space, which will help keep people onsite. This is going to be a very positive item located next to the restrooms. We've added showers, lockers and an area for a gym to keep people onsite. Second and third-floor plans, very similar. Just want to point out that we've got a lot of decks on this building. We've added more since the last time that we came forward to you. That's because we want this building, being next to the street, next to the public way, to breathe. We want this to interact. We want it to be a very extroverted building, where you can see in and people can meet and collaborate outside and have connection with the street. The fourth-floor plans, as you can see, have even more deck that's facing the street and the soccer fields. This is the front view coming from Page Mill. Again, a very clean, modern architecture that's very sculptural. We have a combination of white metal panels, which create a ribbon effect, different planes and different organizations, which start at the top, wrap down and actually become a three-story element, which lends itself to the scale of the Stanford housing to the right. Urbanistically we've caught that scale. As the building tracks to the left, we're more to the scale of Page Mill Road and the soccer fields. We did lengthen, since the last time we met, that three-story element about 50 feet to the left, and we added more of an entrance portico so that there's a real strength in that entrance. As you can see, we've got some decks which overlook and some canopies there. The main planter we have in the courtyard and then the planters to the left and right, which are the existing planters for those Chinese elms, we're going to face them in limestone so that creates a cadence of a very nice material, which then grow into the columns of the building. One of the suggestions you had last time was can we get a little bit more texture into the glass, especially on the third and fourth floors. I thought that was a good suggestion. We added some glass fins, because that will add some texture to it, even some shading on the northeast exposure. That kind of continues throughout the project. Coming from the side that the Stanford housing is on the right, you saw that bulky overhang that we had before. We've pulled that back, so it's actually about 8 feet behind the massing of the first three floors. What ended up happening is it actually tied in with the massing on the back side very well, so that ribbon can continue on back and transition towards there. This is just a view to the back, where we see the limestone actually coalesce into the three-story element in the back with a very dramatic deck overlooking the soccer fields. We just don't think that—part of the reason we spent the expense for the limestone there is because we want to make that back area public plaza very nice, very scaled and an intimate, high-quality space. These are some views into the front courtyard with the limestone planter that's going to buffer some of the traffic. This is the view into the rear area, showing that seating. Now that we've got a food use, that can be a very active area, but then also protected from the noise of El Camino. We've got a variety of public spaces going on. Paul Lettieri is also here, landscape architect, if there's any questions on the landscaping. We have … Chair Gooyer: You need to speed it up. Applicant: I'm done. That's our public artwork. Thanks. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this Board on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back. Alex, you want to start? Vice Chair Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I think the improvements look very good. In general, I can support the project. I have a whole bunch of nitpicky comments. I think the two comments I have that I've been most concerned about was just the pedestrian connection from the above-ground garage to your building, from the staircases and also from the parking, the surface lot. If you're walking from the surface lot to the building, how do you get there? We have some recent other projects at Stanford City of Palo Alto Page 44 where they provide one sidewalk from the back up towards the front of the building. They didn't do them on both sides of the building. I would think some consideration of that would be appreciated. My second concern was just on the sidewalk on El Camino, just what's happening with that sidewalk. We don't have a hardscape plan. Ideally I'm thinking maybe it's best to match what's happening in front of the Mayfield housing, ideally. They're not doing tree wells; they're doing something different. Maybe if you could resolve that with the—coordinate it with the staff to see what's viable. The driving force is to try to get more area for the trees. The tree wells were limited to a smaller size. I think you have a condition of approval to replace the sidewalks, which are existing brick. Also, just for staff, I think the conditions of approval, Number 75, is mentioning Lytton Avenue. I know it's cut and paste, so we should fix that. My nitpicky comments were fixing Condition of Approval 75. I think you're missing the light poles at the garage. I think they're shown in the plan, but we don't have them in the photometrics, and we don't have the cut sheets. I think they're showing them 3 feet high, which seems sort of unusual. Normally they're on a pedestal or something. I think I do need to see the light poles. With regard to the landscaping, I think they're showing planters in gravel. I just wonder about the viability of that on El Camino. Is it just going to become an ashtray? I think you've got planters in gravel in the courtyard, and that's fine. It's relatively private. In some of the renderings you were showing trees on the fourth- floor balcony facing the Mayfield housing. They're sort of ghosted in, but they're not in the plans. I would like clarification if that's happening. Also for staff, on buildings that have a lot of glass, we normally have been incorporating some recommendations from the Audubon Society about fritted glass to prevent bird strikes. It seems like this is a very good candidate for that, given the proximity to so much landscaping along Page Mill Road. Also, you've got a lot of ledges and recesses. I like that architecturally. I do wonder if that's just going to become a giant pigeon ledge. I wonder if any thought has been given to pigeon proofing for there. I just have a comment. I don't think this requires revision at this time. I would say that the landscaping has a huge percentage of nonnative plants. I just want to mention that the Council's interest is in going with more native plants in the future. I don't know. The Council just voted on that, but I think we're looking at more habitat-friendly plants. I think all the plants that have been selected are architecturally interesting, but we may be trying to do something different in the future. I have one last thing. You have canopies shown for the retail space, on that side of the building. We don't have any details for that. I think that's a critical design thing. I just want to make sure that gets done correctly. Just one last comment. Your renderings aren't showing all of the street trees properly. I understand that happens on architectural drawings, because you want to show the building. Applicant: Didn't want to hide anything. Vice Chair Lew: In general, my take on it is that there will be a more uniform tree canopy in front of the building than the renderings show. It will look better and more contextual than what we see in the renderings. Applicant: That's right. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. For staff, I could out nitpick Alex here. On Figure 25 in the historic preservation report, that is not the First Unitarian Church. That is the United Methodist Church. Unitarians have had two churches here, one on Maybeck and one on (inaudible), but not that one. I also wanted to say that I continue to find the project description misleading for the public, because it's so focused on Code-required things or Code-considered things like FAR, that it continues to not discuss the removal of what has been a quite attractive, privately owned, publicly accessible space, namely the second-story terrace, which supports the existing café. I had some questions—I realize this is the streetscape. This is all, of course, Stanford property subject to some serious leases. This is the streetscape that the Mayfield—is it plaza, the housing project is designed to, 2500 El Camino? Of course, it was designed for this big, tall building set way back. Now we have a building of a similar height but City of Palo Alto Page 45 radically closer. The use on that side of the residential building is on the second and third floors. I think it's just second and third at that end is residential. They have bedrooms facing this building. How do those relate in height to the terraces that come off 2600 El Camino Real? In other words, how big of a loss of privacy is there from somebody on that much closer balcony, if there is a balcony on that side, that was not considered at the time the housing was designed? Mr. Lait: I'm sorry. Is this a question to staff about the terrace height and privacy? Board Member Furth: Anybody who could answer it. Basically, I don't think I have—maybe you should just refer me to the correct exhibit which explains to me how those balconies relate to those windows in those residential units. I want to know that they don't look into them, that they don't substantially decrease their privacy, that they don't require them to have curtains closed more often. It was designed for a very different relationship. This was what they designed for. Of course, the City and Stanford worked very hard to get those 70 units of housing, reallocated a lot of commercial space, so it's an important public resource. Mr. Lait: We can look for section drawings; if the applicant has any additional information. If you want to continue with your other questions. Board Member Furth: I would like to know—I would like to be reassured before voting to approve this that those balconies don't provide views into those residential windows. I don't think a balcony facing those uses is appropriate if they do. In other words, it should be up to the residential use to screen themselves for privacy, for something that reasonably anticipated wouldn't exist. I'm also concerned about safety on the sidewalk. I understand I had it completely wrong last time. In fact, bicycle traffic is permitted along this sidewalk. In fact, this is the bike path for access for primarily the College Terrace neighborhood to the park, also provided by Stanford as part of the Mayfield agreement. I do not support retaining those Chinese elms in those planters. I was walking the site again last night. I was thinking about children who move very quickly on scooters, on bicycles or just darting out ahead. I don't think there's adequate vision. I don't trust the stop sign to prevent disaster. Drivers tend to anticipate walkers. They don't anticipate bicyclists on sidewalks because that's not our normal pattern in Palo Alto. They certainly don't anticipate children on scooters. I do not find the pedestrian circulation adequate or safe now, as it's presently designed. I could not support that. I would like to see a more detailed hardscape plan, because presently it's pretty chaotic out there. There's multiple shifts of level. The sidewalk kind of undulates and occasionally drops. I would like to see how that's going to work, that it's going to be flat enough, wide enough. It's so wide I even wonder if it can be protected a bit from El Camino, but I realize there's parking some of the time. I would like to see some sort of protective plantings or what not, if that's feasible, on that wide space between the pedestrians and El Camino. I stood in the area last night as I was on my way to dinner somewhere else. It was about 5:00, 5:15. It was too loud for that to be a useful outdoor space. Every time I've gone to sit at one of the outdoor spaces we've approved on El Camino, even when they're somewhat sheltered by berms or partial walls, they do not appear to me to be functional outdoor spaces. They appear to be too loud. I believe, Sheldon, the noise contours show above acceptable outdoor noise levels along that street. Do they not? That requires particular treatment when you're designing. Mr. Ah Sing: I would have to look at those. The standards for commercial are higher than they are for residential. Board Member Furth: This is supposed to be an outdoor amenity. I'm concerned that it isn't because it's too noisy. I couldn't support that without evidence that we're going to have good sound attenuation that will work. I do not share the view that this essentially replaces the existing terrace because that's set back. It does incidentally support bird life. It seems to be a friendly habitat at the moment. I'm concerned that the area to the back—I'm glad it's added. I'm glad there are tables. I'm concerned that I'm essentially sitting in a parking lot, very close to circulating traffic and parking spaces. I may be misreading it; I may not be understanding it in terms of going up and down. At present, I would not support—there are tables back there as well. I gather there is a sidewalk that connects the two, which is City of Palo Alto Page 46 great. At present, I couldn't vote to support it with the present alignment—what do we call this? The addressing of the circulation at the front of the side along El Camino, and also I couldn't support the balconies facing the residential unless it turns out that they're so high they're not a problem. Chair Gooyer: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I've been looking at this and scratching my head for quite a while now. This is the first time I've been on the Board to look at this project. I'm trying to put my finger on why I feel uncomfortable about it. It is a handsome—has a sculptural quality to the architecture. I think you've done some interesting things with the materials and the folds and the glass and stuff. Talking to the rest of my Board Members, we're missing the boat a little bit on El Camino. We have an El Camino design guideline which requires buildings to be civic. I'll use that word civic. Civic means the buildings work with each other. They create a common cornice line. They don't just try to be sculptural. I'm using your own words. I think that's what's bothering me, that this building is sculptural. It's sort of calling attention to itself in a way that I'm finding is uncomfortable. I'm actually getting pretty concerned as I drove up and down El Camino. We have two projects this week; I've pulled out three other projects in the past year all on El Camino. When I look at the housing development right next door, I think it doesn't meet the Design Guidelines. I think we're actually heading the wrong direction. We need to step back a little bit and make sure that what we're putting on El Camino works with each building up and down the avenue and helps to create a grand boulevard. Those are all words coming out of the Design Guidelines. That's a civic neighbor, that's appropriate for the community. Unfortunately, I just don’t see this building doing it. I see the architectural style not heading that direction. I see you having a strong sculptural image, which is beautiful indeed, but I can't support it as meeting the necessary findings for contextual compatibility and for the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Let me step back from that then. I find it unfortunate that you've been asked to keep those planters with the trees in them. They just serve to make it harder to make it pedestrian-friendly at the ground level. When the trees up in about a 4-foot-high concrete planter, you can't even sit next to it. You can't relate to it. It's strictly related to by an automobile, which is why it's the way it was. It was designed as part of this larger parking garage. I understand that along El Camino you're not going to have a café table right on the curb there. I play soccer; I've played on those fields many times. My office used to be on California Avenue. I've walked up and down that street more times than I can count. Right now, it's incredibly unfriendly. It's cold and windy all the time. It wouldn't take much more landscaping, get the trees down lower, chairs, a berm. You're going in the right direction. I find that the planters hurt not help. My next comment has to do with that parking structure in the back. I find that an unfortunate addition. It doesn't seem to be designed with nearly the care or even presented with any care whatsoever I think it won't look very good. You will see it a lot more than you're not showing us in these renderings. Right now, it just feels like an add-on to meet some parking requirement. I guess that leads me around to my thinking about feeling uncomfortable that we're allowing such a large building here. This is a very large building. I agree the Code allows a 1:1 replacement on the FAR. What you're also proposing to do is preserve all of the existing parking structures, and that's driving a bunch of site planning things that might not otherwise be designed this way. You might have concentrated your parking more in a two-story garage on a new building, which would let you have more site development and things like that. I just throw that out there as food for thought. Bringing this up to current standard is not just the objective Codes but the subjective standards. That's where I'm finding I have trouble with this. Let me reiterate, though. I don't think I can make the findings to approve this, because I don't think it fits the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Kyu. Board Member Kim: Thank you for coming back to us with the project. I also found that the parking structure in the back was not presented clearly enough. I think we need to see some site sections or site elevation at least that shows the building in relationship with the parking structure. I couldn't find that throughout the presentation. If you have a slide of that, feel free to bring it up. I also found that the traffic study perhaps missed the parking structure in and of itself. It doesn't seem to mention it. Where it does mention surface parking, it says that there's good circulation through the surface parking lot and City of Palo Alto Page 47 underground garage. Then, it says that there are no dead-end aisles. When I see the underground parking garage, I actually see two dead-end aisles. I don't think that the traffic study was particularly accurate. The parking structure, I'm actually pretty concerned about that. The drive aisle to drive up that structure is very narrow. As you make those turns around the structure itself, you're going to end up hitting corners of cars, if not corners of that parking structure itself. I think it was A1.1A that shows the plans of the structure. I'm just not convinced that it's going to be okay without there being any mention of it in the traffic study. I don't know if the City plans on having a third party review that as well. That's kind of my biggest concern. I think overall the building—I've liked it from the start. I think the choice of materials and the sculptural components of it actually are very nice and kind of refreshing for this area. In relationship to the Mayfield housing next door—maybe it's not the Mayfield housing, the David Baker project right next door. It's going to make for a different sense of character along that portion of El Camino Real. Some other nitpicky things with regards to the plan of the building. I know it's not necessarily within our purview, but I noticed that you weren't showing the access from the lobby to the office spaces on the ground-floor, if there's a wall between the office and the retail, and some other things. There may be some privacy issues with the lockers and the gym space that you have. I don't know why the men's locker room was 100 square feet larger than the women's. Just some nitpicky things that I caught. Also the decks, while I think it's a nice idea in concept that you want to extend these decks on each floor, I question if the majority of these decks are actually usable. It seems to me that the ones off the sides are only accessed by a single door. Most of the decks in and of themselves are only maybe 4 or 5 feet deep at most. I don't see how you could actually go out there and sit at a table and have a meeting. It seems more like a smoking balcony or just a telephone balcony. With the traffic sounds, I don't know how quiet it's going to be. I think everything else has been touched upon. I don't think I need to reiterate them. Thank you for addressing a lot of the comments that we had previously. I wish you luck. Applicant: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I agree. I think the modifications you made are very handsome. I also do agree, though, as you said as far as the balconies or the access on the side facing the residential. I've heard both of your concerns. The ideal situation would be if we just eliminate them in the sense of keep the recess but just remove the access to them. That would be more advantageous to what Wynne's looking for, as far as not having somebody stand there. Just from a practical use standpoint, most of the people are going to be in the office building from 8:00 to 5:00, and the people are going to be out of the residential units from 8:00 to 5:00. I don't see the two mixing all that drastically. Going to a couple of things of concern. I agree that the parking structure in the back literally looks like an afterthought, in the sense of—I'm not saying it can't work and all this sort of thing. It was definitely "oops, we don't have enough parking, we need to put something here." I'd be willing to have that come back as a subcommittee item. I don't think it's that drastic. There's some minor items that are here, that I don't think can be—I should say could also be brought back to the subcommittee. I think a couple of us on the panel now have said that those two trees—it's a shame as far as—I should say it'd be a shame to get rid of those two trees, but they sure do seem to cause a big pain in the neck as far as … I'd be tempted to say allow those to be removed so you could better enhance those two entry points or entry and exit points. I think it would be to the betterment of the—even though I don't like losing mature trees, I think in this particular case it would be to the benefit of the project. Having said that, I've heard a little bit of everything from various people, from not being able to support it, to sort of supporting it, to liking it. Can I get a motion from someone? Board Member Kim: Chair Gooyer, with respect to the parking structure that's behind the building, it's a pretty serious concern of mine. I just don't want to push that to subcommittee and then find out it doesn't work, and now they have a parking problem that could affect larger site issues. Vice Chair Lew: I would agree with that. Board Member Furth: I would agree with that too. One of the things that I realize now is that while of course the applicant had every right to reconstruct the building as a low-slung model, what really is City of Palo Alto Page 48 making this a bit of a mess is trying to keep the parking approach that it had before and to not put that all underground and out of the way, and then provide some really significant open space onsite. That's screwing up the project. I would like it to come back. I would support the notion of getting rid of the— what am I trying to say? Balconies. Chair Gooyer: Go ahead. Staff has a comment. Mr. Lait: I think that's an important design consideration. If there's a majority of the Board that feels that way, I think it would be good for staff and the applicant to understand that aspect of the project. They are clearly trying to retain the existing subterranean garage for probably a variety of reasons, environmental but also perhaps costs and so forth. If the Board is suggesting that that approach is problematic—I don't know if I'm hearing that—that's obviously a major redesign and has implications. It'd be helpful for us to know if that is what the Board is saying as a majority. Chair Gooyer: I agree. Let me go back to … Vice Chair Lew: My take on it was just the above-ground part of the garage and not the existing underground garage. I was thinking it could be revised and not necessarily complete—not changing the organization of the building. Chair Gooyer: I think what you're basing it on is that Wynne mentioned the idea would be, if this was starting from scratch, to put two floors underground. That would be an ideal situation, but there's not only cost in digging a hole but there's also now cost in going through the first perfectly acceptable parking structure to put a second one underneath the first one. The cost would be astronomical, I would suspect. Are we in agreement that we could—if there was some more thought given to the above- ground portion, that it worked better with the building or, if nothing else, we got a better look at it and got a better comfort level, we would be okay with that? Vice Chair Lew: Our El Camino Design Guidelines really suggest that parking is behind the building. It allows it to be above ground. We have diagrams of the … Chair Gooyer: I agree. Board Member Kim: I agree with everything you just said. I wasn't looking for an overhaul of the structure. I just don't feel quite comfortable without it being addressed in the … Chair Gooyer: That's fine. I don't have any problem with reviewing that. Go ahead. Mr. Lait: What I'm hearing is that a majority of the Board is not looking at the subterranean garage as being in play. Chair Gooyer: We're not modifying the subterranean garage. That's correct. Mr. Lait: The other part for the onsite circulation are the two trees. Staff has been really, I would say, doing what it could to preserve those mature trees. Are we hearing a majority of the Board say that staff should not be pursuing that interest with respect to this project, that the trees are in play? Chair Gooyer: Let me ask. Like I said, I don't like getting rid of trees, but in this particular case those two aren't doing anybody any favors. Board Member Furth: I think it's not compatible with safety. It's not attractive either. Chair Gooyer: I see at least three heads shaking yes, so that's the majority of the Board. City of Palo Alto Page 49 Vice Chair Lew: I think I'm a no on that. I think I support the staff trying to keep the tree. I think the pedestrian thing is an issue, but there may be other ways of solving it. The applicant's been very good about setting back the building more than they have to. We have some room to play with. What I don't want is a pedestrian walking right along the planter. If they're closer towards the curb, then the drivers can see them. That's my take on it. I think I'm in the minority; I'm the only one on that one. Chair Gooyer: I guess the majority would accept the removal of those. I don't think any of us would think that's the number one criteria or the one choice. If that's the only practical solution—there is definitely a problem there. Yes? Board Member Furth: I simply may be in the minority when this project finishes off, but I'm still concerned that the noise levels haven't been considered or addressed properly and that we will have another not really functional outdoor space. The existing one—I think we talked about this in the earlier meeting. The existing outdoor plaza has, in my experience, always been deserted because it's windy, glary and noisy. This one will definitely look better. It's vastly smaller. It's got more landscaping, I think. Chair Gooyer: In that particular one, I would have to argue the point because … Board Member Furth: I'm going to be concerned about open space. Chair Gooyer: … I've been in outside urban spaces where it's all kinds of noise level, and they're used extensively. I don't know if that's really—I'm not that concerned about that issue. Can I get a motion then, I'm guessing, to bring it back to—yes. Mr. Ah Sing: One more thing that maybe we can get a majority or at least a pulse of the Board is having to do with the balconies adjacent to the residential project, the mixed-use project. Whether or not it's … Chair Gooyer: Seeing as though I agree they're only about 4 1/2 feet or so wide. They're pretty much in shade most of the day. They're not going to be a wonderful place. It seems like back in the days when everybody went outside to have a cigarette, that would be the ideal spot for it. Seeing as though not too many people do that nowadays anyway, I would say almost where we make them as a compromise. The design still stays the same, but they don't become functioning balconies. Is that … Vice Chair Lew: The Mayfield housing project was very—they consciously kept the existing trees on that property line. This project is proposing to keep, at least in the drawings, two of the Chinese elm trees. I guess I would like to see how much of a buffer do the trees provide between the two buildings (crosstalk). Applicant: Keep in mind there's quite a bit of distance between the building and the housing and a row of trees in between. Vice Chair Lew: I don't necessarily object to restricting access to the balconies. There's one other thing that we've done in the past to provide privacy to the residential units. We've required automatic window shades in the evenings, so that we minimize the light going into the units. That doesn't address the balcony, but that addresses the office. Chair Gooyer: I agree. It does address light pollution or (crosstalk). Vice Chair Lew: We've done that as a condition of approval. Chair Gooyer: I think that's a reasonable addition, but we're not really ready for that at this point. Vice Chair Lew: I just mentioned it so staff can put it in the … City of Palo Alto Page 50 Chair Gooyer: Right, staff can put that in. Am I hearing bringing it back and basically focusing on the above-ground parking structure in the back? Board Member Baltay: Can I throw out on the parking—I'm just clarifying my own thoughts now. If this had been a blank slate to us, we probably wouldn't be looking at parking stalls at the actual property line, which is the way this has been developed. We wouldn't be looking at two major drive entrances into the building. We'd be looking at one. Both of those are things that could be redesigned at the expense of redoing the parking, which is what they're trying to avoid. Applicant: That's not a true statement. I thought I heard you say that the parking stalls are parked right up to the property line. That's not even allowed by the ordinance. Board Member Baltay: That's what I'm looking at on the site plan. Chair Gooyer: I think what he means is just the layout, the way it currently exists. Maybe he misspoke in that sense. Applicant: Not this project, but the existing. Chair Gooyer: The thought being that—I see where you're coming from. If we redesign the parking lot, you wouldn't need as big a parking garage, for instance. Board Member Baltay: You'd put a row of trees between the housing development and an office building. We don't have room for that now. You've got parking stalls. Applicant: On their property, there's a whole row of trees. Board Member Baltay: For some of it. It's clear on your renderings that there's some windows looking right at this building. In general, we would be looking for using a large site like this to meet other objectives of the Zoning Code. What I see us doing is not requiring that because we're allowing them to keep this parking situation, which is not something they're just entitled to do. It's something that they're choosing to do. That's a problem with this. I'm just putting back to you guys that it's that kind of stuff that drives creating a sculptural building in the middle of a sea of stuff. You put alleys on both sides. That's what we do in the Research Park, but this is on El Camino. We have guidelines to make this an urban thoroughfare. By keeping some of these other elements, it just generates that type of architecture. I'll leave it at that again. Chair Gooyer: I'm open to a suggestion. Vice Chair Lew: I have a question for Board Member Baltay. Aside from the parking, are there things on the building design that could be—is there anything that could be revised to make it more in keeping with the El Camino Design Guidelines or you think it's not feasible at all? Board Member Baltay: If you were to take the piece facing El Camino and not have the drive axis there, but rather do some more landscaping to offset the dramatic corner of the building and perhaps downplay the architecture so it's not quite so much in your face, it would come closer. I find the side facing the housing, when you're coming south on El Camino, to be doing that more. The massing does relate to the buildings next to it. The applicant spoke about making an urban nod. I think that's coming closer to what I'm talking about. From the other side, it really doesn't do that. The site development just exacerbates that. Vice Chair Lew: (inaudible) Board Member Baltay: I don't know if it's realistic to do that level of redesign without a very strong statement from us, which I don't hear. I think I’m in the minority. That's where I see it. City of Palo Alto Page 51 Chair Gooyer: At this point, I don't see the need to redesign it in that sense. I wouldn't have a problem with even eliminating one of the drive aisles. Board Member Baltay: That's a big redesign, I bet. Chair Gooyer: I meant in the sense of for the building. It would be a redesign of the parking lot or the parking layout. Applicant: The fire department won't allow that, because you can't circulate around the buildings and service them. There's quite a bit of cars … Chair Gooyer: That's the other thing. I'll guarantee that the fire department would be very upset if they didn't have this ring around the building. Board Member Baltay: I'll guarantee you if this building came to us on a blank slate, we wouldn't have two drive aisles like this. Chair Gooyer: I can't guarantee that. On a building this size … Board Member Baltay: That's all hypothetical. Chair Gooyer: … the fire may say they want to have access to both sides. Applicant: Keep in mind that—sorry to interrupt. Keep in mind that there is an existing easement that Stanford has. You see it on the lower left-hand corner. Their cars have the right to come through, because they have no access from California. They're landlocked. They've always had this easement through this site, coming through. If we minimize to one entrance/exit … Chair Gooyer: The one between the two buildings, the housing and the … Applicant: They actually have the existing easement to use either one. They can come in off California, but they can't go out. There's all sorts of restrictions on this. Chair Gooyer: Which was one of the reasons why you left the parking pretty much the way it was. Applicant: Yeah. There's a lot of reasons that that parking structure is there. It defines that courtyard space. Can you imagine if it weren’t? Chair Gooyer: Rather than beating a dead horse, why don't we do this? We're looking for a redesign of that parking structure or at least something to make us more comfortable that it'll work. Applicant: We think it works, but if you need some information … Chair Gooyer: We don't, and that's the important one at the moment. Applicant: Let me understand. That's okay. You're questioning the materials and its consistency with the other building or … Chair Gooyer: Based on what I'm hearing from the Board is just the flow of it, the fact that the drive aisles seem tight, and not everybody's Mario Andretti when they're driving around, or maybe they are and that's the problem. It just doesn't seem like it flows well. Is that what I'm hearing from people? Vice Chair Lew: And pedestrian connection all around, through it and around it. City of Palo Alto Page 52 Chair Gooyer: And also the pedestrian connection. Board Member Furth: And how it relates to this café seating in the back. If there is that access easement, can that be your alternative exit? Fire exit? Applicant: No, we can't. We can't use that as an exit. We don't have any easement over their property. Board Member Furth: I don't know what the—this gets back to Stanford's original decision not to allow for this possibility, because they told us that this building would never be modified. The fact that that lack of access is—the not very flattering description of the original building keeps talking about it being a building in a sea of car uses. It's disappointing that we still have so much of that happening here. If it is indeed impossible for Stanford in relationship to its tenants to provide the secondary access along there, even assuming that would be a legal secondary access, I don't know if it's wide enough or short enough. That is regrettable and a self-inflicted wound. Chair Gooyer: Rather than the history, I'm interested in what do we need to do to go forward. What do you need to see? Board Member Kim: I think we need to see a clearer presentation of the parking structure. Chair Gooyer: Shown in relationship (crosstalk) … Board Member Kim: Shown in relationship to the building. Chair Gooyer: … so it's not semi-disappearing, so you see the building. We need something that focuses on the parking structure. Applicant: Okay. Chair Gooyer: Is that pretty much … Vice Chair Lew: If I'm counting votes correctly, then I think that gets you three votes. I think you'll still probably get two no votes if we're just doing the garage. Chair Gooyer: We're talking about bringing it back. Vice Chair Lew: I know. If it's just that, I think you're still getting two no votes on the project. If I'm reading the Board correctly. Chair Gooyer: I'm not worried about that right now. Vice Chair Lew: It seems to me Stanford is worried about that. I'm seeing a lot of agitation back there. Mr. Lait: Just from a process … Applicant: Does this need to come back formally? Can this be a subcommittee? Board Member Kim: I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Vice Chair Lew: The other option is … Applicant: I honestly don't see where—I'm trying to see what you're seeing as too tight or a dangerous situation. I honestly can't see it. Board Member Kim: I'm looking at A1.1A. City of Palo Alto Page 53 Chair Gooyer: Can you bring that up? Board Member Kim: Just to access this parking structure, first of all, it can only be accessed from one side of the building. There are no two-ways up and down. It's basically a one-way parking structure. As you go up the structure, you can only make right turns. You cannot go left. Just the turning radiuses in and among themselves seem very tight to me. Applicant: On the structure. Board Member Kim: On the structure, yes. Applicant: I believe you when you think they're too tight. I can have Awtrey or somebody do an analysis and show you that those are completely comfortable turning radii. Board Member Kim: In addition to that, I think we also as a Board want to see the relationship back to the building and the pedestrian circulation from the structure to the building itself as well. Board Member Furth: I would like to see more detail on the front. I don't know whether you're going to choose to redesign without the Chinese elm and their supporting structure. I would like to see how it works all the way across the front. Thank you. Vice Chair Lew: There are three ways we can do it. We can require modifications to come back to the subcommittee, which is just two people on the Board. I'm hearing resistance to that. Another way is to have the packet come back to the full Board. A third way, which we haven't used recently but we've done in the past, is to approve the project today and have the revisions come back on the consent calendar. We lose all leverage if we don't like the changes. Technically, there would be one last chance to comment on the project. The full Board does get to do that. Chair Gooyer: The problem with that is a design situation like this on a consent calendar is iffy. I've been involved in enough parking structures, that I'm comfortable with this. Two of you obviously are not. I don't mind having it come back. That's one of the reasons why I would feel comfortable bringing it in under the subcommittee. Again, there's more of you that don't. Can I get a motion from somebody and let's take it from there? Otherwise, we can—somebody come out with something, and it can go up and down from there. MOTION Board Member Furth: I move that we continue this to a date certain to be provided by staff or, if they prefer, a date uncertain. Board Member Kim: I'll second that motion. Chair Gooyer: All those in favor. Board Members Furth and Kim voted aye. Chair Gooyer: That's doesn't pass. Let's try something else. MOTION FAILED Mr. Lait: I'm sorry. How many were in favor? Board Member Furth: Two. City of Palo Alto Page 54 Mr. Lait: How many were against? It would help for us to see the hands, so we can do the official voting. Chair Gooyer: It was two for, three against. Mr. Lait: Who was for it please? The three of you were against? Board Member Baltay: I'm opposed to that motion, yes. Mr. Lait: I'm sorry, Commissioner Baltay? Board Member Baltay: I'm opposed to continuing it the way Wynne presented it. Mr. Lait: I just need to understand what the vote is. Board Member Kim: 2-3-0-0. Sorry. Yes, 2-3-0-0, two for, three nay. Board Member Furth: No motion to continue. Mr. Lait: Vice Chair Lew, Chair Gooyer and Commissioner Baltay are noes on that last motion. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Somebody have something else? MOTION Board Member Baltay: Let me try. I move that we continue this project subject to the applicant completely redesigning the parking layout including only having one drive aisle and reworking completely the parking structure in the back to allow for more landscaping on the property perimeter and allow the building to be somewhat modified from the front as I mentioned in my earlier comments. Chair Gooyer: Can I get a second on that? Board Member Furth: I'll second for purposes of a vote. Chair Gooyer: All those in favor? Board Members Baltay and Furth voted aye. Chair Gooyer: Opposed? Board Members Gooyer, Lew and Kim voted nay. MOTION FAILED Chair Gooyer: That doesn't fly either. Somebody else? MOTION Board Member Kim: I will move that this project come back for another formal hearing with another look at the parking structure and also that the elevated trees along El Camino be considered for removal. Chair Gooyer: Can I get a second on that? I'll second that. Board Member Furth: (inaudible) friendly amendment if it fails (inaudible). City of Palo Alto Page 55 Board Member Kim: I will accept that. Chair Gooyer: All those in favor. Board Members Kim, Lew, Gooyer and Furth voted aye. Chair Gooyer: Looks like we got that finally. So that's what, 4-1? MOTION PASSED Board Member Baltay: I oppose that too. Chair Gooyer: That's basically redesign of the parking structure in the back or a second look at the parking structure in the back, the possibility we would allow the two trees to be removed. That was for the betterment of the project. Just a look at the entire interrelationship of the sidewalk and the project. Mr. Lait: There were a number of other comments about balconies and things of this nature. Board Member Furth: Privacy. Chair Gooyer: Those aren't in it right at the moment. Mr. Lait: It doesn't sound like that was included. It sounds like it's looking at the parking structure at the rear and removing the elms and looking at the paving. Chair Gooyer: Probably if that comes back, if there's one or two minor items at that point that we want to add, that's one thing. As of right now, I think the emphasis would be on those items. Mr. Lait: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Is that correct? Board Member Furth: I would find it helpful to hear from staff on the privacy questions, so we understand what impact there is or isn't. Mr. Lait: Sure. This was continued to a date uncertain. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I guess that's it. Study Session None. Approval of Minutes November 17, 2016 and December 1, 2016 Chair Gooyer: The final item we have then … Vice Chair Lew: (inaudible) Chair Gooyer: Let's vote on the two minutes. That would be November 17th and December 1st. Are there any comments on either one? Board Member Furth: I won't vote on December 1st because I wasn't here. City of Palo Alto Page 56 MOTION Board Member Baltay: I'll move that we approve the minutes from November 17th. Vice Chair Lew: I'll second. Chair Gooyer: Can I get a second? All those in favor. Board Members unanimously voted aye. MOTION PASSED Chair Gooyer: That's one. How about the December 1st? Board Member Baltay: I'm afraid I haven't seen those minutes. They were only emailed to me yesterday. Chair Gooyer: They came in via email to me at least yesterday or the day before. Board Member Baltay: I haven't reviewed them, so I can't vote either way on them. MOTION Vice Chair Lew: I will make a motion that we approve the minutes for December 1st. Board Member Kim: I'll second that. Chair Gooyer: All those in favor. Board Members Lew, Kim and Gooyer voted aye. Board Members Furth and Baltay abstained. MOTION PASSED Board Member Furth: I abstained. Board Member Baltay: I'm abstaining. I'm just not voting on it. I haven't read them. Chair Gooyer: That'd be 4-1 then. Vice Chair Lew: Three and two abstain. [The Board returned to election of officers.] City of Palo Alto Page 57 Subcommittee Item 7. 252 Ramona Street [13PLN-00431]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Setbacks/Automobile Turning Radius, the Color Palette, and Upper Level Balconies. Environmental Assessment: Project was Previously Approved With an Exemption Pursuant to Section 15303(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Zoning District: RMD(NP). For more information please contact Ranu Aggarwal at RAggarwal@m-group.us Board Member Furth: For the public record, on the subcommittee item, I have a conflict of interest. Although I'm the standing member for this month, I will not be participating. Chair Gooyer: Do you want to sit in? Board Member Baltay: I've offered to sit in or the Chair has appointed me to sit in. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements None. Adjournment