Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-03-02 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: March 2, 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 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 2. QUASI-JUDICIAL / PUBLIC HEARING: 855 El Camino Real [16PLN-00237]: Request for Architectural Review of an Amendment to an existing Master Sign Program and Sign Exception for construction of a new externally illuminated post-mounted freestanding tenant sign for "Gott's Roadside" at Town & Country. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: Community Commercial (CC). 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 799 Embarcadero Road (file PLN16-00263): 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. (Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures). Zoning District: Public Facility (PF) 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3223 Hanover Street [16PLN-00190]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a 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: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From February, 22, 2017 to March 13, 2017. Zoning District: RP; RP(L). For More Information, Please Contact Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org. 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1545 Alma Street [16PLN-00283]: Consideration of an Architectural Review Application to Allow an Addition to an Existing Single- Family Residence and the Construction of two Additional Units on a 10,000 Square Foot lot. The Project Also Requests a Design Enhancement Exception for Driveway Width and Distance From the Adjacent Property. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction) Zoning District: RM-15 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 6. February 2, 2017 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 # 7797) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 3/2/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Schedule and Staff Architectural Review Approvals 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 anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which 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. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule / Assignments (DOCX) Attachment B: 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 Peter Baltay 3/2/2017 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 Project Description: ARB review to install 3 new LED halo illuminated wall signs. Applicant: Michael Torrez of Ellis & Ellis Sign Systems Address: 2100 El Camino Real File #16PLN-00457 Approval Date: February 23, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: March 9, 2017 Project Description: ARB review to install a new non illuminated wall sign. Applicant: Yesco Signs, LLC Systems Address: 4233 Middlefield Road; File #16PLN-00453 Approval Date: February 23, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: March 9, 2017 Project Description: ARB review to allow for the removal of an existing rolling door at Applicant: Matt Raschke on behalf of Public Works Department Address: 3201 E. Bayshore Road; File #17PLN-00036 Approval Date: February 17, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: March 3, 2017 Project Description: ARB review of a master landscape project Applicant: Dan Miller on behalf of University Club Palo Alto Address: 3277 Miranda Avenue; File #17PLN-00377 Approval Date: February 15, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: March 1, 201715, 2017 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7825) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/2/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 855 El Camino Real Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL / PUBLIC HEARING: 855 El Camino Real [16PLN-00237]: Request for Architectural Review of an Amendment to an existing Master Sign Program and Sign Exception for construction of a new externally illuminated post-mounted freestanding tenant sign for "Gott's Roadside" at Town & Country. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: Community Commercial (CC). From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide direction to staff for a recommended action to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Background The proposed project was previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on February 16, 2017. The associated staff report includes background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55901. A copy of the staff report without prior attachments is available as Attachment A. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-57/. The ARB had four members present when this item was last considered and was unable to get a majority-supported recommendation to conditionally approve or deny the request. The matter was continued to this hearing with the Board’s request that it be the first item on the agenda. The Board also requested that the Town & Country Village Master Sign Program be included with this report (Attachment B). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this staff report is to restate the comments made by the ARB and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and is modified to reflect dialog at the February 16, 2017 meeting. In addition, the applicant has updated their application statement and the project plans, which are attached to this report. Analysis1 The attached report, dated February 16, 2017, includes pertinent information related to this project. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend approval of the project with findings and/or conditions; 2. Recommend denial of the project based on findings; or, 3. Continue the project to a date (un)certain. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Rebecca Atkinson, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2596 (650) 329-2575 Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Staff Report February 16, 2017 (PDF) Attachment B.1: Town & Country Village Master Sign Program 05PLN-00278 (PDF) Attachment B.2: Town & Country Village Master Sign Program 08PLN-00111 (PDF) Attachment C: Applicant Response February 21, 2017 (PDF) Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) Attachment E: Sign Exception and Architectural Review Findings (DOCX) Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7342) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 855 El Camino Real - Major Architectural Review/Sign Exceptions Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL / PUBLIC HEARING: 855 El Camino Real [16PLN-00237]: Request for Architectural Review of an Amendment to an existing Master Sign Program and Sign Exception for construction of a new externally illuminated post-mounted freestanding tenant sign for "Gott's Roadside" at Town & Country. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: Community Commercial (CC). From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Review the proposed project and provide direction to staff for a recommended action to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Report Summary A Master Sign Program exists for the subject site. Consistent with that program, any sign that deviates from the established standard is subject to the provisions of the city’s sign code. The applicant proposes one new sign for the Gott’s Roadside tenant at the Town and Country center. This sign deviates from the program and requires a sign exception from the sign code because it allows an additional sign beyond what is already allowed for a single tenant and establishes a new free-standing sign on the property. Existing free-standing signs on the property are designed to support the center generally. The proposed sign would be the first free-standing sign dedicated to an individual tenant. The proposed sign appears to be thoughtfully designed and within the character of other signs at the center, however, staff is concerned about the shift this application makes to authorize individual tenants to establish free-standing signs. Staff seeks the ARBs direction on the proposed sign. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background Project Information Owner: Ellis Partners Architect: Jason Holleb, Hayes Group Architects Representative: Emily Petrilla, Gott’s Roadside Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 855 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Town and Country Village Lot Dimensions & Area: 535.5 feet of frontage on El Camino Real; 1019.5 feet of frontage on Embarcadero Road Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Not listed on the City’s Historic Property List Existing Improvement(s): Five existing two story buildings, one existing one-story building, extensive parking lot, trees and landscaping; Originally constructed in phases between 1952 and 1958. Existing Land Use(s): Retail and Office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CS zoning West: PF zoning (Railroad) East: Santa Clara County (Stanford University) South: PF zoning (Palo Alto High School) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial (CC) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): No Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: No Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Not applicable PTC: Not applicable HRB: Not applicable ARB: 05PLN-00278 – Major Architectural Review (façade, site improvements, Master Sign Program, and parking space reduction) 07PLN-00216 – Major Architectural Review (Master Façade Program) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 08PLN-00111 – Major Architectural Review (Update to Master Sign Program/Sign Exception for Sign Area) 13PLN-00029 & 13PLN-00030 – Minor Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit (Gott’s Roadside façade changes, two outdoor dining areas, and alcohol sales) Other: 16PLN-00444. Director approval of four free-standing directory signs. Project Description The proposed project is the installation of a new freestanding tenant sign at Town & Country Village for Gott’s Roadside restaurant. The freestanding tenant sign employs materials similar to those utilized elsewhere at the property in building architecture and other site identification freestanding signs, including resawn redwood timber, aluminum “GOTT’S ROADSIDE” letters, a stone base, and LED spotlights for nighttime external illumination. The aggregate sign area is approximately 28 square feet (sf). The sign panel for the proposed freestanding sign generally matches the design of the existing “GOTT’S ROADSIDE” fascia wall sign, but is somewhat larger. The applicant’s project description is included as Attachment A. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR) Sign Exception(s): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.20.040 and PAMC Section 18.77.070. AR applications for a sign exception(s) 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 architectural review and sign exception findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project and are included for reference in Attachment B. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character Town & Country Village was originally built in phases between 1952 and 1958 by Ronald H. Williams, who also built other Town & Country developments in Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Mill Valley. The original character utilized exposed timber and wood framing, low slung tile roofing, and projecting roofs to create arcades. Over time, changes to the original design of the buildings and property have included opening portions of the large overhanging arcades, add 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 5 stone walls, add rough-hewn timber pergolas at dining areas, adjust parking lot configurations, adjust landscaping, update site identification signage and to construct the new building that hosts Trader Joe’s. The changes have largely maintained the overarching architectural style of the property. The City approved a Master Façade Program in 2007 under application 07PLN-00216 that outlines three options for tenant facades. As tenants switch at Town & Country, they typically employ one of these three façade options such that over time the property maintains general consistency of the retail facades. The City approved a Master Sign Program in 2005 as part of application 05PLN-00278 that addressed both site identification freestanding signs and tenant signs. This application did not explicitly include any sign exceptions to the City’s sign ordinance, although some aspects of the approved Master Sign Program would qualify as sign exceptions today. As tenants switch at Town & Country, they utilize the requirements in the Master Sign Program to create their wall signs and blade signs. The City approved an update to the Master Sign Program in 2008 under application 08PLN-00111 that allowed for the installation of the current site identification signs, including the two large 17-foot 8-inches high Town & Country freestanding signs that required approval of a sign exception for overall sign area. These signs host a subset of tenant names on each side to provide more tenant visibility off of Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real. Existing Signs The site contains a variety property and tenant identification signs. There are three free- standing signs, not including the car wash sign located at the corner of the property. These signs are provided below. Existing Free Standing Signs at the Town and Country Village (over 5 feet in height) Free Standing Sign on Embarcadero Free Standing Sign at the Corner Free Standing Sign on El Camino Real City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Gott’s Roadside has sign space on one of the free standing signs above (not shown) and three other signs pictured below: Above: Gott’s Wall Sign Right: Projecting Wall Sign and Supergraphic Zoning Compliance2 According to the Master Sign Program, each tenant shall either conform to the provisions in the Master Sign Program or proposed variations would require approval via the standard architectural review process. Any new sign location or type would then be added as an amendment to the existing Master Sign Program. In this case, the proposed project does not conform to the provisions in the Master Sign Program regarding the number of individual tenant signs and introduces another free-standing sign on the property. Free standing signs are not permitted signs on the subject property. Each of the free standing signs that were approved required a sign exception. The code also limits the combination of signs that may be allowed for a tenant. For instance, the code permits wall and projecting signs as long as there is no free standing sign. The applicant’s request for a free standing sign requires a sign exception for that sign over five feet in height and for the combination of signs allowed for the tenant (free standing, wall and projecting). Table 1: Existing Gott’s Roadside and Town & Country Village Signs EXISTING SIGN STATUS NOTES Gott’s Roadside Fascia Wall Sign 1 sign Meets Master Sign Program requirements – 1 sign per facade 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 7 Gott’s Roadside Blade Signs 2 signs Meets Master Sign Program requirements – 1 sign per entrance door Gott’s Roadside Supergraphic Wall Sign 1 sign Staff has not been able to identify any approval record for this sign Existing Free-Standing Signs at Town & Country EXISTING SIGN STATUS NOTES Corner Lantern Freestanding Sign 1 sign, over 5-feet in height, conforms Approved per 08PLN-00111 Site Identification Freestanding Sign with Tenant Names – El Camino Real 1 sign, over 5-feet in height, conforms Approved per 08PLN-00111 with a sign exception; two-sided with tenant names on each side Site Identification Freestanding Sign with Tenant Names – Embarcadero Road* 1 sign, over 5-feet in height, conforms Approved per 08PLN-00111 with a sign exception; two-sided with tenant names on each side Site Identification Freestanding Sign – Embarcadero Road 1 sign, under 5-feet in height, conforms Approved per 08PLN-00111 *Gott’s Roadside is listed on this sign Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The project site is subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1979). These Guidelines encourage limiting the size of freestanding signs along El Camino Real to between 1/2 to 2/3 the maximum sign area allowed by the sign ordinance, which is between 25 and 33 square feet. The proposed free standing sign is approximately 28 square feet. The Guidelines encourage external illumination of signs and the use of timers so that signs are illuminated during business hours only. The Guidelines encourage limiting the height of freestanding signs to 10 feet at the property line and slightly higher if set back from the frontage, which the proposed project complies with. Environmental Review 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 8 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, the project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. 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 February 3, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 2, 2017, which is 13 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. Recommend approval of the project with findings and/or conditions; or 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Rebecca Atkinson, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2596 (650) 329-2575 Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) Attachment B: Sign Exception and Architectural Review Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org December 1, 2005 Dean Rubinson Town & Country Investors LLC 111 Sutter Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Subject: 855 El Camino Real- Town & Country Village, 05PLN-00278 Dear Mr. Rubinson: I am writing to inform you of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision regarding your request for Architectural Review, a Master Sign Program and a parking space reduction for the project referenced below. Your request is hereby approved as the project meets the standards of review as set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), Section 18.76.020. This determination is based on the review of the project at the Architectural Review Board meeting on November 17, 2005, all information contained within the project file, any public comments received, and the review of the proposal in comparison to all applicable zoning and municipal code requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request by SZFM Design Studio on behalf of Town & Country Investors for Architectural Review of parking lot and landscape modifications, building repairs and minor facade and roof additions. The project includes a request for a Master Sign Program. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provision of CEQA, Section 15301. Zone District: CC. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL The approval is based upon the project’s compliance with the Architectural Review Board’s required findings, except findings Nos. 4 through 6, 8, 9 and 15, as described in Attachment A to this letter (PAMC Section 18.76.020[d]). Approval of this project shall be subject to the conditions contained in Attachment B to this letter. This project decision shall become final fourteen (14) calendar days from the postmark date of this mailing (or on the next business day if it falls on a weekend or holiday) unless a request for an appeal of this project is received. The request for an appeal shall be in writing and submitted to the Planning Division prior to the end of the business day of the fourteenth day. If a hearing is not requested, any necessary building permits may be filed for on the fifteenth (15) day after the post date of this letter. 855 El Camino Real December 1, 2005 05PLN-00278 Page 2 of 9 The project approval shall be effective for one year from November 30 2005, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced. Application for extension may be made prior to the expiration on November 30, 2006. Should you have any questions regarding this action, please do not hesitate to call the Planning Division at (650) 329-2441. Sincerely, Steven Turner Senior Planner cc. Leela Lyons, 621 Rhodes Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Kelly Marik, 1534 Walnut Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dena Mosser, 1024 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attachment A: ARB Findings for Approval Attachment B: Conditions of Approval 855 El Camino Real December 1, 2005 05PLN-00278 Page 3 of 9 ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Architectural Review Board Standards for Review 855 El Camino Real/ File No. 05PLN-00278 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan in that the project would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan policies as described in Attachment F of this staff report. By upgrading the appearance of the Town & Country Shopping Center, the project contributes to the vitality of the area, and continues the compatibility of the center with the adjacent neighborhoods. (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the project would retain the scale, architectural character and amenities of the Town & Country shopping center. The project includes high-quality amenities, such as richly designed seating and gathering areas, light-fixtures, and furniture. The landscape plan would bring plant material and tress to what is now a barren parking lot. The project would improve, but not change, the compatibility of the site with surrounding development. (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the new landscaping, auto and pedestrian circulation, and building improvements would revitalize the shopping center and increase retail and commercial activity. (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community, in that the landscaping, pedestrian amenities, decorative paving and reconfigured parking areas would connect the existing parking facility with the buildings. The parking facility would become an extension of the buildings, in that new pedestrian seating and gathering areas and paving treatments spill out to the parking area. In addition, the proposed project area would better connect with the public streets and sidewalks. (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the walkways, paving treatments, landscaping and other pedestrian amenities would act as way-finding features. The addition landscaping could also act to slow down vehicles moving throughout the site. 855 El Camino Real December 1, 2005 05PLN-00278 Page 4 of 9 (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project, in that all of the protected trees within the project area would be retained. Additional oak trees would be planted. (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function in that they provide an updated identity to Town & Country while preserving the existing character of the center. (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. The project’s landscaping would connect the existing parking facility with the buildings. The landscaping elements in the parking lot would be a natural extension of the landscaping within and adjacent to the buildings. (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The landscape plan would incorporate drought-resistant and low water consumption landscaping that is suitable for the local environment. Findings #4 – 6, 8, 9, and 15 are not applicable to this project. 855 El Camino Real December 1, 2005 05PLN-00278 Page 5 of 9 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 855 El Camino Real/ File No. 05PLN-00278 Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division Prior to Submittal of the Building Permit 1. The following items shall return to the Architectural Review Board on the consent calendar: a. Provide a more cohesive sign program for the site. The sign program for the tenants is acceptable. Construction details shall be provided with the revised sign package. b. Extend the Building 2 roof screen further east down the south elevation. c. Provide construction details of materials intersections, downspouts, windows and framing, landscaping features, pedestrian furniture and fixtures. d. Provide a complete colors and materials board. e. Add more bicycle parking throughout the project area. f. Provide additional trees in the parking lots. g. Widen the portion of the sidewalk adjacent to Scott’s restaurant to the standard width along El Camino Real. h. Add more street furniture to the project site. i. Provide details of the pedestrian circulation plan throughout the site. j. Show the height of the steel trellis. k. Coordinate the light fixtures with the landscaping, lighting and pedestrian circulations plan. l. Provide additional details for the back of Building 1. 2. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans, project details and materials received on November 4, 2005, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 3. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division. 4. Construction details, colors, materials, and placement of the shopping center signs shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to submittal of the building permit. 855 El Camino Real December 1, 2005 05PLN-00278 Page 6 of 9 Ongoing Condition 5. Each tenant shall conform to the provisions of the Master Sign Program, as illustrated in the plans dated November 4, 2005, found on pages 22.3, 22.4, and 22.5. Any variation from this program would need to be approved via the Architectural Review process. Planning Division Arborist Prior to Issuance of Demolition, Grading or Building Permit Issuance 6. Tree Protection Report. Provide a tree protection report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist based on review of all essential elements identified in this condition and any other issue noted by the arborist. The TPR shall include a summary of how the project meets the criteria set forth in the tree preservation ordinance, PAMC 8.10.030 and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 (http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/trees/technical-manual.html). Unless approved otherwise by the Director on the basis of the forthcoming TPR, all development shall be located outside the dripline of the tree, including grading, foundation, excavation, fill, etc. and must address the following critical areas. Show correct TPZ fencing placement and specify Type I around the oak and Type II around street trees. The TPR must propose mitigation measures for drainage, grading, underground trenching, foundations, cut, fill, compaction, exclusion area from irrigation, etc. Water drainage shall be directed away from oaks. The site plans shall indicate the precise location of the required tree protection zone (TPZ) to be enclosed. To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the regulated tree health, the TPR shall review a basic landscape plan submitted by the applicant to ensure the new landscape is consistent with Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks. 7. Site Plan Requirements. Extend the Type II street tree fencing to enclose the entire planter strip and from sidewalk to the outer branch dripline. The Site Plans shall denote Type II fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Protection Report) as shown on Detail #503, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. 8. The approved plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information: a. Sheet T-1_Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan ((http://www.city.palo- alto.ca.us/arb/planning_forms.html), complete the Tree Disclosure Statement 855 El Camino Real December 1, 2005 05PLN-00278 Page 7 of 9 and Inspection(s) #1-6 shall be checked. b. The TPR approved by staff, dated June 27, 2005, shall be printed on Sheet T-1 and/or T-2 (all sheets). A note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "All measures identified in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans shall be implemented, including inspections and required watering of trees. 9. All civil plan sheets shall include a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Arborist at 650-593-4400" 10. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. During Construction 11. Tree Protection Statement. A written statement from the contractor verifying that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. 12. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 13. 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. Prior to Occupancy 14. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification 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. Post Construction 855 El Camino Real December 1, 2005 05PLN-00278 Page 8 of 9 15. Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and Best Management Practices- Pruning (ANSI A300-2001). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Building Division Prior to Submittal of Plans for Building Permit 16. A separate building permit shall be required for the alterations in independent building. 17. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.04.170, additions, alterations and repairs within any 12 month period exceed more than 50% of the value of an existing building or structure that was designed and constructed prior to the 1976 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), the building shall be made to conform to the requirements of UBC Section 1626 for new buildings. Value shall be determined from the cost per square foot table in the most recent issue of Building Standards, published by the International Conference of Building Officials. Public Works Department Prior to Submittal of Plans for Building Permit Public Works Engineering 18. The final plans submitted for a building permit shall reflect the agreement between the applicant and the Public Works department to repair, replace, and widen the sidewalks along El Camino Real. 19. There is an existing median island at the driveway into Town & Country alongside Scott’s. This island is in poor shape and appears to hang over the property line and into the right-of-way. This island should be removed and, if reconstructed, should be at least 12 feet back from the face-of-curb so it will not interfere with the sidewalk. 20. The asphalt section of the alley along the north property line at the back-of-walk is in very poor condition and should be replaced. Also, the driveway approach to the alley is badly broken and must be replaced per City standards. 21. Regarding the ROW along Embarcadero Road, the Block Books indicate the dimension from the face-of-curb to the back-of-walk/property line is 8 feet. The applicant should conduct research to confirm this dimension. We recommend that the 855 El Camino Real December 1, 2005 05PLN-00278 Page 9 of 9 new sidewalk be 9.5 feet wide. When combined with the 6” wide curb, the overall dimension from the face-of-curb to the back-of-walk will be 10 feet. This will require the removal or relocation of the private light poles, which are at the existing back-of-walk. 22. The street trees along both the ECR and Embarcadero Road frontages have been reviewed by Public Works’ arborist, Dave Sandage. The existing trees along Embarcadero Road are in good shape and are to be kept. The Embarcadero Road tree wells shall to be 3.5 feet wide by 16 feet long. The 5 sycamore trees along ECR are to be kept, but the 4 privet trees along ECR shall be removed and 24-inch boxed Yarwood sycamores installed at 25 feet on center along the ECR frontage. All of the new trees and new planter strips shall be irrigated and landscaped and the new trees provided with bubblers. Dave Sandage will determine if tree grates are required for the new and existing street trees. 23. The Town & Country parking lots, especially the large one at the rear of the site (along the CalTrain ROW), have a history of flooding. The entire site generally slopes from the ECR side down to the rear of the site. So, the front parking lots don’t flood, but do contribute to the flooding in the rear parking lot. This project may be the opportunity to address the drainage of the site. The applicant should consider ways to detain as much of the storm water run-off as possible from the front parking lots. Catch basins leading to detention facilities should be considered. Also, the parking lots should be sloped to direct runoff to the landscaped areas. If curbs are provided at the interface of the parking lots and the landscaped areas, openings should be provided to allow the runoff into the landscaped areas. This will allow some percolation and treatment of the runoff. If and when Phase 2 of this project occurs, Public Works will require a grading and drainage plan that addresses the localized flooding. 24. The standard storm water pollution prevention plan sheet titled “Pollution Prevention - It’s Part of the Plan” shall be included in the plan set. A reproducible copy of this plan may be obtained at the Development Center. 25. Include a note on the site plan that the contractor must obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from Public Works at the Development Center prior to commencement of any work in the public right-of-way. February 21st, 2017 Rebecca Atkinson City of Palo Alto, Planning Department 250 Hamilton Ave, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Application #: 16PLN-00237 Location: 855 El Camino Real, Gott’s Plaza Subject: Response to Discussion in February 15th Major Architectural Review Palo Alto Planning Department, We look forward to the continued hearing on March 2nd. In response to Architectural Review Board discussion, we would like to clarify several aspects of our proposal. Gott’s Roadside is a unique tenant at the shopping center. The restaurant is one of the larger retail spaces and, though located near the prominent Embarcadero / El Camino Real corner, has signage on only the Embarcadero elevation. The plaza at the corner is included in the tenant lease as a dedicated outdoor eating space. We request a sign exception, not an amendment to the master sign program, as the owner of the center confirms no other tenants shall be granted a freestanding sign. The purpose of our proposed sign is to: - Identify the plaza as dedicated seating for customers of Gott’s Roadside. - Help visitors to the shopping center (both pedestrians, drivers in the parking lot, and those stopped at the Embarcadero traffic light) to identify the restaurant. This sign is not intended to be seen when driving at twenty-five miles per hour. This freestanding sign is a simple painted redwood cross-piece spanning between two re-sawn heavy timber redwood posts with black hardware brackets. The design mimics the existing post and beam arcade throughout the center. The proposed sign is very close to the size of the existing arcade fascia sign. The color, font and spacing of the lettering shall match. Built onto the existing stone wall, the sign creates an architectural gateway, reinforcing an entry to the center. Our resubmission drawings are included with this letter. Kindly note that on sheet A0.2 several dimensions on the sign elevation drawing are clarified. These small changes improve consistency with previously submitted iterations: the posts are 9 ¼” square, the walkway opening is eight feet wide. Please call if there are any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Terrence Murphey Architect, Project Manager June 30th, 2016 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 855 El Camino Real, Gott’s Roadside Signage, Project Description To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Hayes Group Architects is pleased to submit an ARB submittal package for new signage at Gott’s Roadside, Town & Country Shopping Center, 855 El Camino Real. The project applicant is Hayes Group Architects on behalf of our client, Gott’s Roadside. This package includes twelve sets of half size drawings and two sets of full size drawings. 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS Gott’s Roadside is an existing restaurant tenant at Town & Country Shopping Center. The restaurant occupies roughly 3,900 square feet, near the corner of El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road. Town & Country leases Gott’s Roadside use of a 1,500 square foot open patio for dedicated outdoor dining. This patio seating contains six rustic picnic tables and four umbrellas, surrounded by a low stone wall and landscaping. Gott’s Roadside has one existing facia sign. The size and character and detailing of this sign was installed as permitted by the Town & Country Shopping centers previously established Master Signage Program. 2. PROPOSED PROJECT The tenant is requesting additional signage at their dedicated dining plaza in order to increase the presence as well as define the edge of seating area. The tenant name ‘Gott’s Roadside’ will be written in cut aluminum letters on both sides of a painted redwood board. The paint colors and detailing will match the existing facia sign. The proposed design for the sign relates to the key architectural vocabulary for the center emphasizing and expressing a heavy timber post and beam frame. The original entries at the center as well as monumental signs were derived from California “ranchos”. This sing also continues this them as a gateway element to the plaza as well as pedestrian path to the buildings. This sign board spans over a walkway and is supported by two heavy timber ten-inch rough sawn square redwood posts. These posts shall be mounted onto existing stone landscape walls. The overall height of the sign is 9’-5” above the walkway with the bottom of the sign intended to relate to and emphasize the strong horizontal line of the patio umbrellas and arcade beams. The size and color and detailing of the posts and sign will be similar to the existing monumental freestanding signs at the center. Both sides of the sign will be illuminated with four high-efficiency narrow-focus light fixtures that match the site lighting standard. The appearance of the fixtures and intensity of the lighting shall be similar to other existing light fixtures at the shopping center. Power will be routed within the landscaping and through the post with minimal disturbance to plants and trees. Any ground plants disturbed during construction will be replaced to match the existing previously approved landscape design. 3. SIGN EXCEPTION FINDINGS The shopping center has three freestanding signs and a landscape wall sign. These signs were reviewed by the ARB and approved by the director of planning under application 08PLN-00219 and 08PLN-00111. A Master Sign Program regulates tenant signage at Town & Country Shopping Center. Planning staff has indicated that they believe the proposed ‘Gott’s Roadside’ sign design would not be covered under the master sign program since the sign program did not address “pole mounted” signs. Staff requested this item be reviewed as a sign exception. As required by PAMC Section 16.20.040, findings supporting this are below. 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. Town & Country Shopping Center is a unique facility; distinct from all other uses in this zoning district. The layout of the retail tenants requires signage different from what is typically permitted in the municipal sign code. This particular tenant has leasing rights for dedicated dining/ seating space as well as to brand the space with their identification for patrons. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships. The outdoor patio, with picnic tables and umbrellas, has been leased to the tenant as an uncovered dining area. Identification of this dining area dedicated for the tenant’s patrons is key to the continued success of the restaurant since they rely on these seats for their business use. 3. The granting of the application 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. The freestanding sign does not reduce or eliminate any pedestrian walkway, parking space, or landscaping. The design of the sign is compatible with the post and beam vocabulary of the existing buildings. The sign will not be detrimental or injurious to the area. The signs architectural vocabulary compliments the centers defining elements. The sign will not be in conflict or competition with the other monumental or pole mounted signs at the center given its scale and distance between these elements. Kindly call us at (650) 365-0600 with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Jason Holleb, AIA Principal 16PLN-00237 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT E SIGN EXCEPTION FINDINGS & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS 855 El Camino Real / File No. 16PLN-00237 SIGN EXCEPTION FINDINGS Finding #1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; Finding #2: The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; Finding #3: The granting of the application 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. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS 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. 16PLN-00237 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 2 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. 16PLN-00237 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT F PROJECT PLANS 855 El Camino Real / File No. 16PLN-00237 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 “855 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot for Gott’s Roadside 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 Architectural Review 022117” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7700) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/2/2017 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 PLN16-00263): 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 January 19, 2017. Excerpt minutes of the January 19, 2017 ARB meeting are attached (Attachment F). The hearing was continued to March 2, 2017. The two prior staff reports are found online; they include extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies. A copy of the January 19, 2017 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 information contained in the earlier report as modified to reflect recent project changes. The draft Architectural Review approval findings are provided as Attachment A. These findings include modifications to Findings 2E and 5 offered by Chair Lew on January 19, 2017. 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 January 19, 2017 staff report described the December 1st ARB comments and the applicant’s responses and included the applicant’s response letter. The report is found online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55508 and the video for the second ARB hearing is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q66pWDs8rz8&start=3440&width=420&height=315 ARB Comments and Applicant Response The ARB noted its appreciation for the alternate Zink material, but requested the applicant consider a lighter color finish and wider spacing, The ARB noted the CMU fence with openings and vines was appropriate, but requested the applicant consider a warmer color for the CMU fence. The ARB discussed the building’s zero ‘set-back’ from the park boundary line and the height of the dormitory portion of the building, as being a potential impact upon the park. The ARB noted the woodsy setting and potential loss of ‘privacy’ for park users in the wood scape, and suggested removal of the ‘eyebrow’ over the second floor dorm balcony and lowering of the ceiling of the ‘saddlebag’ (second floor dorm component) to eight feet instead of nine feet, or if feasible, lowering it by two to four feet. The applicant considered the ARB’s comments, made changes to the plans and provided a response letter (Attachment E). The changes include a height reduction. The above rendering of the park-facing elevation is from the January 19, 2017 plans. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The revised park-facing elevation from the February 16, 2017 plan set shows the height of the dormitory volume is lower, a standard punched opening window replaced the slotted window, and the eyebrow over the balcony is thinner. Below front and rear elevations show the park- side saddlebag was lowered as requested by the ARB. Rinconada Park side Newell side Newell side Park side The renderings on the next page show the smaller dorm saddlebag facing the park on the image at left, and vegetation at maturity on the image at right. The overall height of the terracotta-clad main massing was reduced by six inches. The zinc-clad massing on the park side was reduced by an additional 2’2” (2’8” lower than the first plan set). The applicant notes that the terra cotta portion reduction “still barely allows for the minimum apparatus bay height, minimum ceiling height in the house, and minimum parapet height sufficient for mechanical screening and fall protection.” The parapet wall was removed completely on the westerly saddlebag and the bulk on this side and against the sky was further City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 reduced by thinning the “flying beam” at the corner from its original thickness of 2’-10” to a thickness of 1’-7”. The ARB had referred to this ‘beam’ as the “eyebrow”. Analysis1 The revised plans received February 16, 2017 are intended to address the ARB’s concerns. The changes 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. Approval Findings As noted, staff revised the draft findings for approval to incorporate ARB member comments regarding Findings 2E and 5 from the last meeting. The project’s compliance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan is set forth in the draft findings for approval (Attachment A). 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 day in advance. As this project was continued to a date certain by the ARB, no additional mailed noticing was conducted. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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: Applicant's response letter February 16, 2017 (PDF) Attachment F: ARB minutes Fire Station 799 Embarcadero 1 19 17 (PDF) Attachment G: January 19, 2017 ARB Report only (PDF) Attachment H: 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. The existing fire station is very low-key and inwardly oriented; the new station is outwardly facing and attractive to its neighbors. (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. The existing oak trees are wild-life supportive as “anchor” species, to support other native shrubs (such as salvia and manzanita) that are attractive to birds, bees and butterflies. (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 Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Members Wynne Furth, Robert Gooyer, Peter Baltay Action Items 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 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 Lew: Ok, so the next item is item 3. It’s a public hearing/quasi-judicial for 799 Embarcadero Road. Applicant's request for architectural review approval of a new two-story, 6,663 square foot replacement fire station located on the Northwest corner of Embarcadero and Newell Roads which is adjacent to the southeasterly edge of Rinconada Park; which is an 18.27-acre property. An Environmental Assessment is that the project is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to section 15302 and the zoning is public facility. So, Staff? Ms. French: Yes, thank you, Amy French, again. I wanted to just start off by reminding the Board that this was last before you on December 1st and we did try to capture in the Staff report the various comments that were made and how the applicant has returned. The applicant did provide an updated chart that’s attached to the plans that were sent out. We got them the day of the packet so – it’s just slightly different. It has a few more statements there. Again, here is the existing first station. You saw these images last time. I just wanted to let you know, over the weekend I had a chat with the former firefighter who said that the firefighters are interested in that original sign because some of them, including the one that I spoke to, started work at that station and has some sentimental attachment to this old original sign. He said, you know, even if it was salvaged and placed inside in the lounge where they hang out, that would be nice; so, I just thought I would bring that up. Again, the HRB had seen this before and had asked for consideration for a pitched roof. The ARB, some members brought that up last time as well and then, also there was a suggestion for outreach to the Community and I’ll have to say, they really knocked it out of the park. The fire Chief and the Staff here and Public Works met – Matt Raschke to my left and Bridget, and the architects held an event over at the Art Center in the former City Council Chambers there, and we did have one attendee, but it was very interesting because her father had been the one to design the Terra Cotta wall over at the Rinconada Park – I’m sorry, over at the Rinconada Library. So, it was very interesting having a conversation with her. The revised plans, just to get to it; Zinc panels here and I’ll let the architect go a bit more into the choices there, but there was a concern by the ARB about the life span of the material. Then, the park facing the wall, there was another concern there so, there have been changes there. The other note was about the corner, your noticing ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: January 19, 2016 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 that there can be a bit more generous paved area for the bicyclists that come to that corner. I have the revised materials here, just quickly; again, the architect will cover these in more detail, but CMU wall with recurring slates and openings facing the park with some additional vegetation; the wood soffit going into the inside to supplement the wood door. Then, of course, these are two images that you have in your plans that have the see thru fence option and then the CMU wall with the breaks and the additional vine plantings. Then here, on one of your later pages in the packet shows a study for a pitched roof. So, this would be increasing the massing and that’s what the architect looked at. Again, here’s the existing and proposed layout, and so, that’s it. I’ll just leave this out. Again, we’re asking for the Architectural Review Board to [Technical difficulties] So, we’re asking for architectural review recommendation to the Director today. We’ve teed it up that way with the findings and conditions so we’re hopeful that the ARB can come to a recommendation today, and Matt, did you want to add anything as the project manager? Mr. Matt Raschke: No, I would just like to introduce Alan Kawasaki from Shah Kawasaki Architects and have him present the latest design. Chair Lew: Well, welcome back and you have 10 minutes. Mr. Alan Kawasaki: Yes. Thank you for seeing us again and we also joined by the Fire Department with your questions as well as our landscape architect if there are any questions in that direction. Just to summarize, I think we all have recognized that the surrounding has a mid-century modern vocabulary and we’ve been trying to respect that and as we know, modernism is not necessarily fixed in time but it’s about reflecting our own time but being respectful of course to existing conditions. As we talked about previously, you know, our constraint is that we’re essentially trying to put twice as much program into the same footprint in the same sight so, that’s a challenge. We’re trying to get more in and how do we do that has generally been through a two-story, rather than a one-story building. I’m going to show a little bit of backtrack only to show the progression because I know that not all of us have attended every single one of the past – this is the third meeting so -- Board Member Furth? Board Member Furth: I should say that I was unable to attend it but I have read the minutes carefully and they’re practically revamped. Mr. Kawasaki: Right. So, this was actually where we were in November and I think we first talked to you in June but November we were here and we were – actually, we had also talked to HRB; had a presentation. This reflects where we were with them and also with some preliminary with you and I think what we’ve been seeking to do is get more articulation and scale to the building. So, as we’ve progressed, we’ve added more window openings, more variations to the facades but it has remained --in our recommendation, it has been for a flat two-story building rather than sloped. Just to recall also, part of the reason was of course, if we sloped it, we believe that many of the elements will exceed the 35-foot height limit, if we had sloped elements. The other is that our belief is that we are now required – as architects, we know that we have CALGreen and we know that we have PV requirements and so, we also know that technology changes over time so, we felt that rather than having PVs on a sloped roof, that having on our high section – as you know, we increased that center bay above the apparatus and made the saddle bags lower but we made the center part taller. That center part is where being PV panels are and are ballasted so they could be changed out over time. This was the first iteration. More articulation and I know this was not necessarily what we came for today to talk about, really, we came about this slide. Same thing though, rather boxy to begin with, more articulation and I think the last comments we had on this slide or questions that we had to address, where the materials. The question was on our specified materials, which is a fluoropolymer or Kynar aluminum finish. Is there something that could be designed to have a longer durability? One question was asked, “what is the durability of Kynar or fluoropolymer?” and, as we all know, it is the material, state of the art, high risers are cladded in it so it is the best in terms of finished materials. What we said was, “how about we have natural materials?” What we are coming to you today is to say, as an option or recommendation, we like – we’re recommending Rheinzink, which is a Zinc material so there is no paint on it. It weathers to this color. Actually, we’re having it pre-weathered and the panels are a little different, it's more of a thinner panel as you see and vertical which we think is fine because we’ll have the metal panels vertical. We’ll have the City of Palo Alto Page 3 Terra Cotta horizontal just to keep them different, keep them broken up. The other thing we did was – I think there was a comment on the elevation. You liked the wood door as we do and just to note, our interiors of our front entry, the ceilings are wood and so we thought, let’s bring more of this wood. So, what we’re proposing to do is on the soffits, the underside – I hope this works – yeah -- so the undersides, we’re actually putting a wood slate and we like that idea because you know, weathering wood is also an issue over time and so this becomes protected. As we’re entering the building, we have a nice human scale and pick up on the door which is wood and then the wood panels that are in the ceilings beyond. The other comment was on this elevation in particular, but I think in general it was the idea of a sloped roof. We did look at that again but we still feel that – essentially, what we’ve done is our saddle bag portion or the metal portion of the building are pretty much – the roof is just at or slightly above – the parapet is almost a gravel stop and so anything that we add in terms of sloping to that, will increase the height of the building. Then, if we did that, this shows at the high point 35-foot and at the low point right down to the lowest portion of the gravel stop so technically, we can slope and if we were to slope, we like the idea of Asymmetry in the building rather than symmetry but still, our recommendation is not to go this direction. As you can imagine as I have already stated – and we were just looking at this element so, if we were to make this low and make this high at 35-feet – but imagine taking this from the low point and raising at the same slope to that point, we would exceed significantly the height limits. Again, we think that the idea of having a flat zone here with interchangeable PV panels is probably the best. We have a tree here of course so, this location also gets us mostly the best orientation – southern exposure, probably this is not a great location but we think this as a flat roof predominantly over the main bay is the way to go. We think that by bringing more articulation to the building, we’ve accomplished many of the concerns I think that we heard about massing and scale. This is our recommendation. I think some of the other points that were a concern last time were the concrete wall along the park and there were concerns about both the massing, but also, is there a way to kind of have a little bit transparency, rather than – well, what we did was photographed the building as it exists. We take relatively the same angle -- I think you pointed out that there is a picnic bench of course, which exists there and then there’s a little barbeque place there. Right now, you cannot see or see it just a tiny bit of the existing building right here and yes, a two-story building will be seen from here but is obscured by the current trees and as we know, when we rebuild a wall, a lot of these existing trees with be affected. Our proposal – this is the first one which is the idea of transparency. This proposal is one where I think as suggested that some sort of gate that we have at the – sliding entry gate to the parking would be replicated on this side and yes, you would see through but I think -- just bear in mind what you’re going to be seeing is parked firefighter vehicles. There are storage vehicles back there also for emergency and of course we have the generator and other things. We can do it, it’s not our favorite solution so we’re thinking if the transparency was desired maybe an idea of slots in the wall makes a bit more sense. So, we would have these – yes, these sort of metal pickets as where shown here but really in kind of isolated places and that’s what’s shown here. You wouldn’t really see until you got up and if you really wanted to look in there, you could look in there but not so much. This is sort of at construction and you can see some smaller indications of 15-gallon trees being placed back here. The other thing that we did – I know it’s not what you asked for but what we did was we said let’s replant all those bushes and trees and vegetation that’s there that is actually screening the existing building. We think in sort of 15-years, it’s going to look like this. We think in 20-years, maybe you won’t see any of the building on that side so, a combination of what do we have in the beginning which is sort of a peek a boo – I think someone said peek a boo look into parking and then over time, all that would grow through. The vines would cover probably those fences and the trees would probably obscure that elevation in its entirety. Then, the following are just simply our resubmitted boards. Our previous board or previous elevation, the Rheinzink boards also with the bird glass, right? Safety glass and – we can take that over there. This is also -- Board Member Lew, this is the block so rather than poured in place concrete, we have to be mindful of our budget also so what we did was we offset – you know concrete block is less than poured in place. We thought, well ok, we get some scale but we made a nice block which is machined faced block and that’s what we’re proposing. We think that works well with the metal panels; again, concrete walls changing to block walls; Rheinzink, the new glass. These are just for record, right? The concrete with slits and a site plan with more vegetation along that edge. We did widen out along – as much as we could. The problem that we had was that right here; there is telephone pole with guide-wires going out so we weren’t able to actually put the paving in here. We were worried about people hitting the guild City of Palo Alto Page 4 wires but we did increase as much as we could the paving area. That’s our response to your thoughts. Thanks very much. Chair Lew: Great. Thank you very much for your presentation. I don’t have any speaker cards. We can move onto the Board Member questions. Anybody? No. Comments? Then why don’t we start with Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Alright, thank you for coming back with the refinements that you’ve made. I guess I do have a couple quick questions, just to start perhaps. I was not so much against the previous metal panel but I think the Rheinzink is also a fine choice. Is that the only proportion that it comes in? Could you find a wider panel perhaps or is that just the natural dimension of that panel? Mr. Kawasaki: We’re actually trying to look and see. This is what we’ve found thus far. We’re actually – we’re going to talk to our manufacturers of our prior panel which is currently only available in, to see if fluoropolymer they could do this but we don’t have an answer. Vice Chair Kim: Ok and then also, I wanted to get a clarification then, what is your preference for the fencing? Is it to go with (Inaudible) or is it… Mr. Kawasaki: I think the Fire Department can best explain this but you know, we’ve done 24 fire stations and every single one of those, there is this balance that you have to take between what the public sees and what is kept private. In general, from a functional standpoint, you don’t have those back aprons visible. Then the question usually is, do we make that sliding gate opaque or picketed? In this case, we said picketed. We’ve never had a comment before to open up the backsides of an apron. It usually can be pretty messy back there and if you – the Fire Department is here, they can explain that I’m sure. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, understood. I mean, I think for me, the project was near approvable last time and I think the further refinements that you’ve made – I stand very comfortable in recommending approval of the project. Thank you for staying with us and addressing our comments. I was perhaps just slightly a little disappointed that that water fountain never got moved to the corner but it’s not a deal breaker by any means. I think the choice in materials, again, is very handsome and very thought out. I appreciate the section details of some of those material corners of the building. I think my preference for the fence – my question was actually not so much whether to go picketed or CMU but I think the original fence that was presented in the poured in place concrete was perhaps a little bit nicer but I do understand the cost implication and I would be fine with a CMU fence as well. The comment that I have is really regarding the park facing elevation. It does seem like you’ve tried to make an attempt at changing one of the dormitory windows. It looks like it’s been set further back than the other window and goes to the roof. To me, it seems a little bit like a one off. I can see how at the fire station entrance way, you have a similar window condition where it does go up to the roof but I don’t know if it’s necessarily worth doing that change but in either case, I think over all the fire station has come out very well and I’m appreciative of the process that you’ve undertaken to get here and thank you very much for your presentation. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, first of all just a couple of things. I always frown a little bit when an architect sits here and says, don’t worry, in 20-years we’ll put trees there and it will hide the whole things. It just really – that bothers me a little bit but I do like the improvements that you – definitely like the improvements you’ve done with the materials and everything else. I’m still not a big fan of the big cubes. I mean, I do appreciate also the Staff report that says, note that with the proposed installation of solar voltaic – photovoltaic panels will provide a visibly sloped element to serve as a reference to a sloped roof residential oriented civic architecture. If we have to use the solar voltaic panels to get the sloping roof I want, I think we’re really pushing the envelope. This thing has a 5-foot parapet on it and I still don’t see why we can’t get some – and I agree with you, I’m not a big fan of the symmetry; I agree with that. I would prefer an A-symmetrical but I would have liked to see something more of the slope to represent that. I like the change in materials that you’ve done, definitely. The only thing I fear a little bit is the new metal may end up on a not so sunny day, end up being a very, huge black cube sitting there and that City of Palo Alto Page 5 bothers me a little bit. That may detract from the rest of the building. I guess that’s all I have – I’d like to hear what the rest of my fellow Board Members say before I give you a sort of up or down on it. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Thank you for working through the design process. I think the building has indeed gotten better, gotten closer to something that we can approve every step of the way. Contrary to what Robert said, I liked the elevation, the cube from Newell. I think it’s a handsome building of our time and support that part of it quite well. I also think the use of the natural Zinc panels is a very good change and I want to be clear that we want to – I will want to see that definitely put on the building. I do agree with Roberts comment that your choice of finish might be a little bit dark and I would support having perhaps you take one more look at whether that is the right color. You don’t want it to just be a black box and I have worked with this material and it does on a cold wet day, have a very dampening effect. It’s very non-reflective, very natural looking and you want it to look sort of interesting and crispy and the dark color may not do that. I’d like to bring my comments though back to the Board that I remain quite concerned about the height of the building against the park. I’ve struggled with this quite a bit. I went out yet again, to the park and took a long walk through the whole park from the Lucie Stern Center through the trees and I’m sorry but I think that that part of the park is not just a tucked away piece of one picnic table but rather sort of the end of Rinconada Park, which is heavily used. Those Redwood groves back near this building are, I think, quite heavily used with people sitting, recreating in there. I think your renderings, taking it off from one angle, don’t fully get the way that this will appear through the trees, I grant you. I was unable to convince myself that it didn’t matter, that it was ok. So, back to my Board Members then, this building is 7-feet closer to the property line. It is twice as tall; literally, 30-feet against the boundary. No place else in town do we let a development go that close. What they’re really proposing to do is take another 10-foot buffer zone of the park and let that become the landscape zone. Well, that’s what a setback is and why do we let this building of all buildings push another 10-feet into the park, which is really what they’re doing in order to properly mitigate the impact of the height of this building and the mass of it. Again, 7-feet closer to the property line, twice as tall… Chair Lew: Can I make a correct, that it is not a property line. There’s a park boundary line but it is one parcel. Board Member Baltay: Absolutely. I’d like to be clear. I understand that this is one parcel. What I’m referring to is what the public perceives as a boundary line and I think that’s important to see. Anybody else developing in town would think of this as a boundary, a termination and setbacks are designed for purposes to mitigate the effect on the neighboring – I won’t use the work property but the neighboring use. When I look at the design of the building, then I say to myself, what can be down about it because I understand it’s a complex program, it’s on a tight site but if I could pull our attention to section A3.12. I wonder if it’s possible to even pull that up on the screen? Mr. Kawasaki: I don’t have that on… Board Member Baltay: Is that possible to… Mr. Kawasaki: I don’t have it here. No, this is from last time probably or from the hard copy that you… Board Member Baltay: Well, I’m just looking at the drawing that was given to me. If I get my Board Members to even take a look at section A3.12. Mr. Kawasaki: If you could just go – show me what that is because we’ll know which one you’re talking about. Board Member Baltay: It’s a building section through the residential – through the firemen dormitories… Mr. Kawasaki: Right. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Baltay: … what I’m looking at is a 10 ½-foot plate to roof area for the dormitories. It’s about a 9 ½ -foot ceiling for the firemen’s dormitories. Then, I’m looking at – it’s not dimensioned here – several feet of mechanical space over some other functional space – this is the part of the building that is against the park and I just don’t understand why you can’t do something to lower the height of that piece of the building. So, in my opinion, for me to feel that I can make a finding that this is contextually appropriate, I think it needs to come down at least 4 or 5-feet against the park somehow, just to mitigate the apparent height. So, that’s my push to my fellow Board Members that we seriously consider what’s otherwise a very handsome building but seen from this angle of Rinconada Park less so. Thank you. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Could we go back to the image of the view from the park now upon competition? The photo simulation. Mr. Kawasaki: Yes. This one or this one? Board Member Furth: That one. Thank you and just – so, I understand that this is a single parcel of land but we’re not here to decide whether something is compliant with the quantitative aspects of the code. We’re thinking about does it meet the design standards of the City? Treating the use line, the park boundary as a property line, what the setback of this building from that property line? Mr. Kawasaki: If it were a property line, it’s against the property line. Board Member Furth: From that line, there is zero setback? Mr. Kawasaki: Right. Board Member Furth: I think it’s our responsibility to look at this not as if where a computing device that can’t think about a larger context and is calculating literal compliance with the quantitative code but to understand the intention of these rules. It comes up in the research part to and applies them accordingly. First of all, I think it’s great to have a new building. I like the way the building looks from Newell. I like the way it looks from both those street frontages. I think it will be lovely to have a building that looks new, adequately fun and update, solid, unlikely to come down in an earthquake and also is civically inviting on those frontages. I think that is all terrific. I’m very struck by the adverse impact on the park. It does two things. One is, you see it from quite a distance and it’s a handsome building but what’s special and delightful about Rinconada Park is that it’s a wood. Particularly, in the vicinity of this building but not unfortunately in front of it and with this building, we lose two things. We lose the sense of being away from urban hardscape and we lose any sense of privacy. This becomes an overlooked – not in the sense of the neglected but prevailed site. I’ve got two questions for Staff here because this is a project of course. I’d like to approve – I recommended approval for – one is, are we confident that the shadow line that this building will throw in the park will not adversely affect having plantings there, heavy plantings? I know we have shade diagrams but I don’t know what that means in terms of the health of growing plants. Ms. French: Well, I’ll try to answer that. I guess the existing plants are mature vegetation and when we say growing plants – I mean, all plants grow but… Board Member Furth: Well, no, in my garden, a lot of them die because of inadequate light. Ms. French: Well, plants tend to continue to grow as long as the circumstances allow for it. The brand- new planting that is proposed in this project include vine plantings along this wall, as shown on the screen image, and I guess potentially transplants of trees. Looking at sheet A108, which is basically, December at 9 AM, you know, there’s not going to be much growing going on at that time. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Furth: I’m basically asking you if it’s going to become all mossy? The answer I’m getting is we don’t know but we think it will work. Ms. French: I think if you consider where the – where South is, we will have sun coming into it just not at the times – not at 9 AM, you know, in the winter. I think yes, they’ll have enough – Oh, is he? Oh, the landscape architect is here. Board Member Furth: Great. Mr. Kawasaki: Would you like – ok. This is Bob… Board Member Furth: Cool. That’s wonderful. Mr. Kawasaki: …Norbutious? Mr. Bob Norbutious: Hi. Maybe I can help a little bit with that. So, in this situation with the very large trees, regardless of orientation, we’re looking at understory planting design. Along the walls, with the use of vines, we will be able to create that green screen and the interface with the park setting. The planting material is going to be low water use plants that will tolerate the shade, part shade. Board Member Furth: For example? Mr. Norbutious: We have Celosia and Salvia on the edges that will still grow thin but will still be a nice rich color. It won’t be a deciduous look so, it will always have that nice green interface with the park itself. Final selection definitely has to consider the shade value of the tree that are above it. Board Member Furth: If one of the concerns is higher landscaping so that the overlooking of this area by the deck, for example, on the second story is through tree filtered –is through foliage rather than as it presently is, is that possible and how many years would that take? Do we have funding for that part of the design? Mr. Norbutious: One of the problems of bringing in trees to an existing situation, other than looking at the arborist report and the health of the trees today, you’re looking at a generational planting. That if you were to put in more Redwoods or more groves of trees for future growth as these starts to die, that would be one approach to take. That has been taken before but right now we’re in a situation where it’s understory trees that will be able to grow to their maximum 15 to 20-foot height and not grow irregularly based on what’s above them. Board Member Furth: So, you couldn’t get a 25-foot tree in there or 30-foot? Mr. Norbutious: No, that would be with the expectation… Board Member Furth: I’m not expecting you to do violence to the park design. Mr. Norbutious: Right. What it would expect is that these trees have a life span that those Redwoods and Oak would eventually come out which generally, looks like they don’t have that ability. If you bring in Redwoods, they’re going to be thin. They would fill in but they would fight with the existing trees. Board Member Furth: Even though it looks like that there is a fairly large open space here actually, roots are busily occupying that land? Mr. Norbutious: Right, right. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Well, I find myself in a dilemma here because I think the building is – partly is because I’m mindful that Palo Alto population has residents that have often felt that the City has City of Palo Alto Page 8 not adequately protected its park land. That’s why we have a park improvement ordinance that lets them reframe any park improvement. That’s why we have a park dedication chart provision that says that the City can’t un-dedicate used parkland for non-park uses without the consent of the voters. Looking at these photo simulations, which are not looking at the real building, it seems to me that this does have an adverse impact on that park and I would love to hear from my colleagues that I’m wrong and it will be fine. Board Member Gooyer: Can I make one thing – what made me think about this is that one of the big issues, when we talked about the University property, is the whole concept of an eyebrow makes it even look bigger than – and that is a terrace. I mean, would there be some consideration of getting rid of that eyebrow which would make that corner a lot smaller? Bard Member Baltay: Absolutely. That would be an improvement in my opinion. Board Member Gooyer: That’s a fairly simple… Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: …right, exactly. That seems to be the biggest concern that we have is the impact on the park. If possibly, as you said, you take that back second-story area, get rid of the eyebrow. Possibly drop the – just in that area, the ceiling height to 8-feet instead of 9, that would begin to – do a big chunk -- I mean I understand, in the central area you don’t want to lose 4-feet out of your space but that would go a long way towards making it seem smaller and also just the whole concept of the shadow study. Board Member Furth: Somehow, when you take that eyebrow off. It seems like this engages with the park instead of looming over it. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) (Crosstalk) Chair Lew: (Inaudible) Ok, excellent. I think that is a very interesting suggestion and I – maybe I have a question for the applicant. Board Member Baltay was talking about lowering the height of the building but if you could maybe just refresh our memory about the – you went through the height – I think the first hearing of why the ceiling heights went up and maybe if you just review – you have a cross section through the whole building that shows how the different cubes align with each other. Mr. Kawasaki: So, the governing elevation setting for the second floor is obviously over the top of the apparatus bay and so, we would want that to be continuous. We would not want to have a staircase going down to the saddle bag so, we take those across. If there some room on that second floor to take it down a bit? Yeah, I would say, currently they are set at 17 if I’m not mistaken. We have, under circumstances, for instance, when the ARB has said we need to take it down, we can push it down a bit. I can’t – I’d have to work with the construction engineer and see what we can do. See what happens is you got that fire apparatus that has to come out a 14-foot door and then above that, you have coiling doors on the backside so that there’s height. There’s also, I think we talked about the (Inaudible), these are the vents – there are hoses that go from the back of the truck. They are on a slider so, those also take the room. The front of the building has the 4-fold doors. They do not have such a requirement however, they have greater depth. If we – we can’t really push the building back because of the turning diameter. We can take another look to see if we can get 4-fold doors back in the back. There is a higher cost. They are about 35k per door versus 5-10; they’re pretty expensive. They’re great doors but that will add considerable cost to the project. I think that we can push the engineering to see if we can drop the floor down somehow if – I think I hear what you’re saying. Now, as far as the dormitories, 9-feet; that is a standard firehouse – let's call it program requirement. I will say there are also, similarly, when we have concerns with height. We took down (Inaudible) Fire Department down to 8-foot, which is a residential level in the dorms. Many of our houses are at 8-feet, right? Again, that can be done. We’re maybe talking 8-foot on the dorm, maybe a foot on the At. Bay, that’s 2-feet. I think what I’m hearing from you is do City of Palo Alto Page 9 everything you can to bring that elevation down and so, that would be something that you could direct us to do. We would need to see if our department can accept that because it is a programmatic requirement at this point. Typical fire station has a 9-foot ceiling; typically 17-foot floor to floor. I could, with some additional engineering see if we can pull that down so, yes, you could direct us to take another look at that and talk back with our department and see if we can pull that elevation along that side down slightly. I don’t think we’re talking 4-feet but maybe a couple feet and I think the suggestion about the terrace there is a good one. Yeah, we can pull that back and see what we can do there to reduce the massing; all good comments and things that we can come back to you with. Chair Lew: OK, thank you. Board Member Furth: One more question. Chair Lew: Sure. Wynne. Board Member Furth: Trying to remember back to our previous discussions. Remind again why this building couldn’t be back 10-feet from the changed use from the parking boundary? Was it to do with the turning radius? Mr. Kawasaki: From the park boundary, it has to do just with getting things to fit. Maybe… Board Member Furth: Because we’re not built all the way up to the street setback line. Mr. Kawasaki: No. We can’t be because what happens is if you look at – maybe – let me see if I can get to the site plan. It was way up front, right? All the way up. Board Member Furth: C2? Mr. Kawasaki: I don’t – here. Going back to some of the other diagrams. We are pushing the turning diameter for a truck to get into these back doors right now. Board Member Furth: Right. Mr. Kawasaki: So, that’s at that door. Then we have constraints regarding the historic or the cultural assets which are the Oaks and the Redwoods. We cannot get into those areas – stay clear of the canopy because we know the roots are at least that far. Pretty much, if you looked at this footprint, it is pretty much the same as the existing building footprint with the exception of, as you stated, this area – I think it’s about 7-feet or so. So, we are now encroaching into this area and that is both on the ground floor and the second floor. That has to do with putting in support and putting in stairs. By support I mean, (Inaudible) when we do a fire station, there’s more cleaning and safety things that we do. There’s more stuff that we have to do to support an apparatus. The other thing that happens on the upper floor as you notice is that – you know, we have private bathrooms, private dorm rooms… Board Member Furth: I know, the introduction of women just made it so much harder. Mr. Kawasaki: It made it better for everyone. So, yes, we have those issues as well. Chair Lew: Is that it Wynne? Board Member Furth: Yes. Chair Lew: Ok. Kyu? Sure. Vice Chair Kim: I have one more question. Looking at the perspective that you had on the screen before and even the west elevation; if the building is up against that park dedication line, currently it’s showing City of Palo Alto Page 10 the CMU fence wall with the Rheinzink above, is that what you’re planning? It almost looks like there is a double wall there but it’s really on the same plane, is it not? Mr. Kawasaki: This is currently on the same plane so, as you said if this was a property line – that zero- lot line – block wall on the property line and then the face of the Rheinzink is also directly in alignment with the concrete block wall. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Ok. I have a couple of over comments that are different than the other Board Members. Part of this relates towards a revised finding and I think that some of these are issues that we haven’t really discussed in previous hearings. One is that we have a – in our landscape finding, we’re trying to create habitat and so, we are trying to encourage more native plantings. We have that in – I think the Staff has put in some draft findings for that, which is finding number 5. I think I did want to sort of revise that to say – let me get the exact wording. I think the Staff has written it as the existing protected trees on and off site will be retained and protected and I think we just want it to say something more positive which is that the existing Oak trees are wildlife beneficial and are considered an anchor species for habitat. Then, there are other native, smaller shrubs, right? Like the Salvia, Spothesea, and the Manzanita are also very attractive to birds, bees, and butterflies. I think the idea is that in creating a habitat, you actually want trees and shrubs together. You don’t want an Oak tree and a lawn because the wildlife actually wants both in proximity to each other; is my understanding on it. Then, I guess a question for the landscape architect, is that the Manzanita that you’re specifying for the ground cover. I think you had a lot of it. My understanding was that that was used along Palm Drive at Stanford when they reconstructed the road in the 90’s. Then, they took it all out because it wasn’t performing well and they replaced it with a non- native plant. I was just – I don’t know all the details about it but I was just wondering your thoughts on how you selected this and then if you’re aware of any issues with that variety of Manzanita? Mr. Norbutious: Do you know the actual variety of Manzanita? Chair Lew: It was that Pacific Mist… (Crosstalk) Mr. Norbutious: It was the Pacific Mist? (Crosstalk) Chair Lew: …Yeah, and they’ve used it else ware but in this particular one, it was sort of a high-profile failure. It just didn’t really fill in – it was along the curb, right? You know on the planting strips. Mr. Norbutious: Ok. So, as far as plant material, we do like to use it but we have found lately that working with nurseries and different varieties, we’ve done some work at the Bay Lands and El Camino Park. Same kind of situations where it’s hit or miss that they do very well and then we’ve also had some situations where whether it’s recycled water or the orientation that they aren’t doing as well. I think we need to look at some more of the different varieties we could choose from if we want to still stick with the Arcaste and keep that kind of ground plane or bring in a secondary ground covers so that we do have the benefit of variety. Not too busy up the landscape but to look at different massing especially, for health and quality. The healthy plant will dominate the areas. The Arcaste may not thrive as well. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. Then, I think my second item is on finding or new findings which are 2E which is on – that the project enhancing living conditions on the site and in residential areas. I think the Staff; your draft says the temporary living facilities for firefighters in the new building would provide much-improved living conditions on the site and the proposed building would not adversely impact the nearby residential neighborhoods located at the south of Embarcadero Road and north of Hopkins Avenue. I think that those are fine and I think I was thinking about adding an additional comment which is that the existing fire station is very low key and very inwardly oriented and that the new stations is actually fairly outwardly… Board Member Gooyer: In your face. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Lew: … well, in your face. I would say – well, I would say it’s welcoming but the plaza, the porch, the entrances, the balconies are all – and the glass doors and the wood pedestrian entrance doors is all very desirable and attractive to the neighbors. On the fence options, I want to thank you for this sample. I was a little worried that this was going to be to gray. I think you picked it to go with the Zinc. You know, I was worried it was too gray – to dark compared to the pool house or the pool facility. So, we’ll see. I don’t know. If there was a way to use a warmer color I would welcome it. I realize that it’s – you’re proposing to cover with Creeping Fig, which will sort of – yeah, it will (Inaudible). Yeah, and the Creeping Fig will pretty quickly cover up all the block. Regarding the fencing, I think I had a preference for the CMU over the metal. I have seen metal fences or at least metal gates that have more privacy than I think the way you’ve detailed it. It seems to me that the block is a safer design choice at this point than going with the open gate and primary fencing around the back. Especially, because you have the garbage and the generator and potentially a cell tower – station in the corner. So, it seems like the block is a safer design choice. Regard to the comments about the sloped roof and the massing – the three-story massing on the park; I think my take on it was that the building is only 40-feet long facing the park; horizontally. It’s not like some of our buildings in town. We have 300-foot long, three-story facades without windows so, this is not anywhere near close to that. We do have other parks. I think there’s a Heritage Park downtown that has three-story condominiums facing the park with no buffer at all. My take on it, I think it’s – my take on it is I was thinking that’s it’s approvable today but – yes. Board Member Furth: That park actually followed and was created by that same development so that’s an Ab Initio arrangement. Chair Lew: I know you worked on the (Inaudible). Thank you, Wynne. It seems to me – I think Robert’s idea of cutting off the eyebrow could be a huge – possibly be a huge improvement so I am – I think that’s worth studying. Then, my question is for staff. I think we’re on our third hearing. I think we have to – No? Because you’re not counting the preliminary? Ms. French: This is the second formal hearing. Chair Lew: But we normally count the – what is (Inaudible) (Crosstalk) Ms. French: (Inaudible) You have three hearings… Chair Lew: So, you’re not considering… Ms. French: Yeah, so if you felt you needed to continue it to see something additional, that is your right to do so, or privileges as a Board to do so. Chair Lew: Ok. Why don’t we – does anybody want to take a stab at a motion? MOTION Board Member Baltay: Sure. I’ll move that we continue this project to a date uncertain with the request that… Male: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Let him try the motion and we’ll see where… (Crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: (Inaudible) I just wanted to put it out there – with the request of the applicant to the lower the height of the saddle bag – to use the term of the architect – between 2 and 4-feet adjacent to the park boundary. With all other findings as set forth in the Staff report and with – oh, on the last thing would be to have the actual finish on the Zinc panels come back to us for consent review – subcommittee review. I don’t think – was there any other? (Crosstalk) I would leave it to the architect's City of Palo Alto Page 12 discretion how to reduce the apparent mass. I think the suggestion is a good one but I’m very uncomfortable with us actually designing from the podium here. I think these architects especially – was there any other landscaping questions Alex that you were concerned about, though? I can’t remember. Chair Lew: I think they’re aware that there is an issue so, I think that that’s… Board Member Baltay: Ok, well, that’s my motion. Chair Lew: Anybody going to second? Board Member Gooyer: Second. Chair Lew: Ok, seconded by Robert. Mr. Raschke: Can I just make a point of clarification? So, the motion is to continue it to a date uncertain but then you asked for the Zinc panels to come back on consent. Would those be coming back for consideration with everything else? Board Member Baltay: Very good. Let’s just take that off altogether at the moment. Mr. Raschke: Ok, thank you. Mr. Kawasaki: I think – can I add one other point? We asked – we presented two options in terms of the block wall versus the picket fence and if there’s a preference that you have, we would like to continue on your preference or if the Fire Department has any issues then, they would want to weigh in. Board Member Baltay: I would like to then add to the motion that we keep the concrete block wall preference if that’s ok with the secondary? Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Board Member Furth: Is there a date certain that the applicant would like and staff would agree to? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt: If you wanted to talk about a date certain for a March 2nd hearing, we would need to have revised plans at the beginning of February. For a March 16th hearing, we would need to have revised plans in the middle of February. Mr. Kawasaki: We can make the beginning. Staff may shoot me but we’ll make the beginning. Ms. Gerhardt: The beginning of February would be a – for revised plans would then be a March 2nd hearing. Board Member Baltay: Very well. Let's change the motion to a date certain of March 2nd. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll keep my second on that. Chair Lew: Ok. So, all in favor? Chair Lew, Vice Chair Kim, Board Member Furth, Board Member Gooyer, Board Member Baltay: Aye. Chair Lew: Ok, so that’s 5-0. We will see you back in March. We are going to take a 5-minute break before we hear item #4. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 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 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) 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 F: Applicant's response letter (DOCX) Attachment G: Staff report December 1, 2016 w/o attachments (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) ATTACHMENT H Hardcopies to ARB Members and Libraries only Project plans can be reviewed at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3570&TargetID=319 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7678) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/2/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3223-3251 Hanover Street: 2nd Formal Hearing Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3223 Hanover Street [16PLN-00190]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a 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: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From February, 22, 2017 to March 13, 2017. Zoning District: RP; RP(L). For More Information, Please Contact Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org. 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 findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation of applicable city codes and policies. That report is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55511. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment G. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 On January 19, 2017 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q66pWDs8rz8. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response The requested Design Enhancement Exception to allow elevator and stair enclosures to exceed the height limit is not consistent with the applicable findings The Design Enhancement Exception request and associated proposed structures have been removed from the application. Consider ways to enhance the vehicular circulation and approach to the building and present a more identifiable and functional public entrance The entrance to the lower level parking lot has been shifted sixty feet to the rear and uses wayfinding signage, landscaping, and alternative paving to signal that the lower level is the main entrance to the site. The lower level garage layout has been reconfigured to provide a direct vehicle and bike/pedestrian path of travel to a new drop-off area, which would be daylighted with a new lightwell. Re-route the Bol Park bicycle path connection to provide direct access to the building frontage The bicycle path connection has been shifted to provide a continuous path of travel to the courtyard area along the left of the drive aisle. Enhance the landscaping in the meadow in order to provide suitable habitat The landscape plan now includes additional shrubs and groundcovers in the meadow, including manzanita, coffeeberry, and Evergreen Mountain Lilac. Six new 24” box trees (3 California Black Oak and 3 Arbutus) are also proposed to be planted in this area. Provide additional details on the shading profile and better explain the building’s sustainable design features The applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments includes a preliminary analysis of the project’s Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) building energy performance. Formal Title 24 sheets for the project would be supplied at the building permit phase of the project. Analysis1 Changes since January 19, 2017 Formal Hearing 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 3 In addition to the ARB direction on the project, staff had requested site design changes to enhance bicycle and pedestrian access from the courtyard area to the Hanover Street sidewalk. The revised plans now show a new sidewalk leading to the lower level parking garage entrance, as well as cross walks within the parking garage, which provide a direct path of travel for cyclists and pedestrians. These improvements, along with the reconfigured connection to the Bol Park bicycle path, enhance the multimodal circulation on the site. Zoning Compliance A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment B. 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 Guidelines2 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. As mentioned in the prior staff report, the site is well served by public bus transportation on Hanover Street. The two nearest bus stops in the project vicinity would be relocated with this project to provide better transit access. 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. Refinements to the site plan since the January 19, 2017 hearing include a reconfigured bicycle path, which now connects directly to the building entrance, and a new sidewalk along the front driveway, which provide bicycle/pedestrian access to the lower level parking garage from Hanover Street. Within the parking garage, this bicycle/pedestrian connection continues as a series of crosswalks, which link directly to the stair/elevator pavilion. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. As stated in the prior report, 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. An earthen berm is proposed along portions of the southeast boundary of the site, which abuts several residences. This berm, in addition to hedges of English Laurels, would screen the site from many of the residences. Provided these design mitigations, staff believes that the site is appropriately screened from the abutting residences, and will be a compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. 2 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 4 Policy L-48: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. The project has been designed to provide direct access to the adjacent Bol Park bicycle path, as well as multiple bicycle/pedestrian connections to the Hanover Street sidewalk. The two nearest bus stops in the vicinity would be relocated along the site frontage with this application to further promote transit access. Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. As stated in the prior report, the project proposes to redevelop an existing office / R&D site with a new building, and would be compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. Proper mitigations have been included with the project to ensure that the use is screened from the adjacent residences, which are situated on large lots and contain dense existing landscaping and forest cover. The project has been designed to provide a large open meadow, which would contain groundcovers and trees and would enhance the appearance of the lower terrace portion of the site. Staff finds that the proposed project has adequately responded to the ARB and staff comments provided at the January 19, 2017 hearing, and believes that the findings for approval can be made. A staff analysis of the project in the context of the findings for approval is included in Attachment C. 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. A Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment H) have been prepared pursuant to CEQA and is being circulated for comments from February 22, 2017 to March 13, 2017. Mitigation measures have been included in the Draft Conditions of Approval for the Project. 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 February 17, 2017 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 17, 2017 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Prior to the previous hearing, staff received an email from a neighbor who lives on Matadero Drive, which is to the rear of the subject site. As the building contains glass curtain walls on all elevations, the email expressed concerns regarding the potential for light from the interior of the building to produce nuisances for the homes adjacent to the site. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 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: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment C: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment E: Public Correspondence (PDF) Attachment F: Applicant Response (PDF) Attachment G: January 19, 2017 ARB Staff Report (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans and Initial Study (DOCX) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 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 ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT B 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 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 386 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 C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3223 Porter Drive 16PLN-00190 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The project is in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: 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. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the Zoning Code, and the project meets all applicable development standards. The Stanford Research Park does not have a coordinated area plan or specific design guidelines. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The project takes advantage of the existing terraced topography of the site to provide a distinctly active upper level and passive lower level to the site. Activity would be centered on the upper terrace, which contains the building, garage, and courtyard, with access to the activity areas from the lower level drive aisle and bicycle path connection. The lower level terrace would consist of a wildflower meadow, along with preserved sycamores and newly planted black oaks. The drive aisle entrance would be defined by paired rows of Hungarian Oaks, which further provide an internal sense of order. The site planning provides for a large street setback along the Hanover Street frontage, which provides a prominent landscaping buffer between the activity areas of the building and courtyard. This landscaped setback also physically orders and visually defines the site, including the significant courtyard open areas, from the public realm along Hanover Street. A large mature oak near Hanover Street is appropriately preserved and integrated with the project, and serves as a prominent site feature. The scale, mass and character of the building is appropriate for the Research Park context, which is surrounded by other two-story office / R&D buildings and associated site improvements. The building is appropriately set back from the rear lease line in order to provide a harmonious transition between the office/R&D use and the adjacent single family residences. Along this site rear, earthen berms and laurel hedges are proposed to supplement the existing vegetation and provide screening for the adjacent residences. Finding #2.c. is not applicable to the site, as the Municipal Code does not provide context-based design criteria for the Research Park (RP) zoning district. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The roofline of the building utilizes a series of inverted gables, which provide a contemporary and visually striking appearance of high aesthetic quality. These inverted “butterfly” gables are further utilized at the garage entrances. The building materials, which consist primarily of a glass curtain wall, as well as wood soffits, concrete, and blue-painted metal, are thoughtfully placed and well integrated to present a unifying architectural theme. The curtain wall is broken up by horizontal mullion pattern, as well as two separate systems of fritted glass at bottom of the second floor. The project would take advantage of the existing terraced slope by providing a two-story parking structure roofed with an open courtyard on the upper terrace, with a small amount of parking relegated to the rear of the site. Given these design elements, the project is compatible with the surrounding Research Park context, and would enhance the surrounding area by providing unique architecture with high quality materials. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the placement of the two-story building emphasizes existing open space along the Porter Drive frontage while relegating parking improvements to the rear of the site. The project presents a functional and accessible design for multiple modes of travel. Vehicular access to the site would be from the existing drive aisle entrance, with a separate entrance to each level of the parking garage. Additional surface parking is relegated to the rear of the site, along with the required loading spaces. The lower level garage deck provides a drop off area and the main entrance to the site for people arriving by vehicle. Pedestrians and cyclists would access the building via the Bol Park bicycle connection, as well as several sidewalks connecting portions of the site to the Hanover Street sidewalk. Pedestrian seating is proposed in the form of benches and tables in the courtyard, as well as seat walls and tables in landscaped areas at the rear of the building. Bicycle parking is convenient and located near building entrances and within the subterranean parking garage. Adequate vehicle and accessible parking is located conveniently in the surface lot and in the subterranean parking garage. The amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and the function of the site, with the lower terrace’s wildflower meadow serving as an attractive amenity. Wayfinding signage has been presented in a preliminary phase with the application, and would be evaluated with a formal sign application at a later date. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The landscape plan highlights the existing mature live oak along the Hanover Street frontage, and preserves a grove of live oaks in the rear of the site which buffer the building from the adjacent residences. Grasses on the site would be of several low water use, “no mow” varieties, including fescue, veldt, and autumn moor. The meadow would consist of a California native wildflower mix, which would not require regular irrigation. As the site is located in a developed portion of the Stanford Research Park, it is not considered prime habitat. However, the project would preserve several sycamore trees in the meadow area, and propose six new trees as well as native shrubs to support desirable habitat. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The project’s design includes the prominent use of inverted gable canopies, which would provide significant shading for the building facades. The applicant has supplied a preliminary CalGreen Checklist to ensure conformance with applicable requirements regarding green building techniques, and they have indicated that all mandatory requirements would be adhered to with this project, including standards for water conservation, energy efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. The applicant has also provided preliminary modeling indicating that the project would exceed the local reach code performance requirement of a 10% reduction over the TDV energy of the Standard Design. The site planning removes a large surface parking lot on the lower terrace and relegates the majority of the site parking to a subterranean garage, which in addition to shade trees will reduce the site’s contribution to the “heat island effect”. Exterior lighting is limited to the drive aisle, surface parking, and courtyard, and the photometric plan submitted with the application indicates that artificial site lighting would not spill over onto the adjacent properties. ATTACHMENT D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3223 Hanover Street 16PLN-00190 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received January 31, 2017 except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. The plans submitted for building permit shall incorporate the following changes: a. Add a note to the site plan indicating all barbed wire located on the site shall be removed with this development 3. TRAFFIC MITIGATING AMENITY SPACE. The plans submitted for tenant improvement building permit shall include a floor plan describing the use of the 5,500 square feet of traffic mitigating amenity space. The space may include, but is not limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias, day care centers, automated teller machines, convenience stores, and on- site laundry facilities, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 4. NOISE. A report shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer verifying that the project design includes windows capable of reducing interior noise levels to 50 dBA or less. This report shall be prepared prior to issuance of building permits and to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Mechanical equipment shall be designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the City’s Ordinance requirements. An acceptable acoustical consultant shall be retained to review mechanical noise as these systems are developed to determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to meet the City Noise Ordinance. 5. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. The project will be required to implement these Best Management Practices (BMPs), as follows: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, if feasible, and if water is available due to drought and water shortage conditions. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly turned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Post a publicly viable sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 6. ASBESTOS. In conformance with local, state, and federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on the structures proposed for demolition. The surveys shall be completed prior to demolition work beginning on these structures. A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. 7. LEAD-BASED PAINT. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. 8. DOCUMENTATION. The buildings on the project site shall be documented prior to demolition, including archival photography, written narrative description and history, and funding provided for the acquisition, preservation and archiving of other historical information, images, and oral histories via a local repository such as the Palo Alto Historical Association or other archive. This documentation shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Palo Alto Department of Community and the Environment prior to building demolition. 9. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO 1.1. NESTING BIRDS. To avoid or minimize impacts to nesting birds within the project footprint, all construction related activities should be scheduled to take place outside of the breeding season (generally February 1 to August 15). However, if construction- related activities are unavoidable during the breeding season, it is recommended that a qualified biologist conduct a survey for potentially nesting raptors and other tree and ground- nesting birds within five days prior to the proposed start of construction related activities. If active nests are not present, construction can take place as scheduled. If an active nest is observed, an appropriate exclusion buffer will be established around the nest in coordination with the CDFW and/or USFWS. 10. MITIGIATION MEASURE BIO 2.1. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES. The City’s tree protection guidelines, as described in the City’s Tree Technical Manual (Standards & Specifications, Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030), Section 8.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the Standard Tree Protection Instructions within the Tree Disclosure Statement (TDS), describe methods to reduce this potential damage. New trees and landscaping shall be installed in compliance with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. An Updated Tree Preservation Report (TPR) shall be prepared for trees to be preserved and protected, consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City Urban Forester. The TPR shall incorporate the following measures, safeguards and information: The TPR shall be based on latest plans and amended as needed to address activity or improvements within the a Tree Protection Zone (ministerial dripline area). TPR shall stipulate areas designated for ‘no-cut’ design over root of each tree number; and including but not limited to any work (utilities trenching (not incidental), street work, lighting, irrigation, patio material, leveling, staging, travel, etc.) that may affect the health of the trees. The project shall be modified to address TPR concerns and recommendations identified to minimize below ground or above ground impacts. The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the tree preservation ordinance, PAMC 8.10.030 and the City’s Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban_canopy.asp. To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of the trees the TPR shall review the applicant's landscape plan to ensure that patio flat work, irrigation, planting or potted plants is consistent with the Tree Technical Manual. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City Urban Forester. The TPR shall include a Tree Appraisal Section. Existing trees to be retained in place, including those in the right-of-way and any relocated tree (transplanted) shall be assessed. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plan Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. Provide a Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) for all trees to be transplanted on the site. The TRMP shall outline all steps using the ISA BMP’s for the successful relocation of any tree to be transplanted on the site, including biological treatments, details to provide regular automatic irrigation system for many years. Annual reporting to the City shall document tree conditions and soil moisture at all critical elevations with data and photos. Prior to building (grading phasing or any other jump-start) permit issuance, provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The natural tree resources on the site include significant protected trees and neighborhood screening, including trees proposed for relocation. Prior to building permit submittal, the Tree Security Deposit for the total value of replaced or relocated regulated trees, as referenced in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to the City Revenue Collections in a form acceptable by the City Attorney. As a security measure, the project shall be subject to a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant describing a tree retention amount, list of trees, criteria and timeline for return of security, and conditions as cited in the Conditions of Approval for the project. The applicant and project arborist shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the protection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on the site during construction and within five years after occupancy. The applicant shall bond for 150% of the value for the relocated and 50% of the appraised value of the remaining regulated trees to be protected during construction (as identified in the revised and final approved Tree Protection Report). The applicant shall provide the proposed level of bonding as listed in the Tree Value Table, with the description of each tree by number, value, and total combined value of all the trees to be retained. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to an annual followed by a final tree assessment report on all the relocated and retained trees from the project arborist as approved by the City Urban Forester, five years following final inspection for occupancy, to the satisfaction of the director. A copy of the MoU draft is available from the Urban Forestry section. 11. MITIGIATION MEASURE BIO BIO 2.2. PUBLIC STREET TREES. Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of public street trees. Provide no-net loss of canopy mitigation in the event of a public tree removal. The new frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the following elements: Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan. Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources. Create conflict-free planting sites by locating tree sites and underground utility services at least 10-feet apart (electric, gas, sewer, water, fiber optic, telecom, etc.). Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and generous planter soil volume (800 to 1,200 cubic feet) to sustain a medium to large tree. The project will implement tree protection measures as described in the tree inventory and report in Appendix B of this Initial Study to protect the trees to be retained on the project site. All measures would be required to be printed on project plans, in accordance with City standards. 12. MITIGATION MEASURE CR1.1. CULTURAL MATERIALS. In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and the archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. Recommendations could include collection, recordation and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 13. MITIGATION MEASURE CR1.2 SKELETAL REMAINS. In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered, the applicant is required by County Ordinance No. B6-18 to immediately notify the County Coroner. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the provisions of state law and the Health and Safety Code. The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall also be notified immediately if human skeletal remains are found on the site during development. 14. MITIGATION MEASURE CR1.3. DISCOVERY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, all work on the site will stop immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. The City shall be notified if any fossils are discovered. Treatment may include preparation and recovery of fossil material so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The project proponent shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the paleontologist. 15. MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ 1.1. POST DEMOLITION SOIL SURVEYS: A post-demolition soil survey shall be required following site clearing. The survey shall include a closely gridded shallow hand auger and photoionization detector (PID) screening under the demolished building footprint. The screening results shall be provided to the SCCDEH. Soil in any area of elevated soil contamination exceeding the RWQCB’s environmental screening level (ESL) for groundwater protection shall be removed and disposed of at an appropriate waste facility. Documentation of completion of soil surveys and any required remediation shall be provided to the City of Palo Alto and the SCCDEH prior to issuance of building permits. 16. MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ 1.2. DISCOVERY OF CONTAMINATED SOILS: If contaminated soils are discovered, the applicant will ensure the contractor employs engineering controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Engineering controls and construction BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) contractor employees working on-site will be certified in OSHA’s 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training; (b) contractor will stockpile soil during redevelopment activities to allow for proper characterization and evaluation of disposal options; (c) contractor will monitor area around construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate field screening instrumentation; (d) contractor will water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto transportation trucks; (e) contractor will place any stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds; and (f) contractor will cover the bottom of excavated areas with sheeting when work is not being performed. 17. MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ 1.3. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: Prior to building permit submittal, a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SMP) will be completed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil, soil vapor, ground water or other materials. The SMP will also contain contingency plans to be implemented during excavation activities if unanticipated hazardous materials or unknown structures/contaminants are encountered. The SMP will also specify basic health and safety concerns to be addressed by the contractor or subcontractor responsible for worker health and safety and documented in a detailed Health and Safety Plan prepared for the contractor. SMP measures will be required to be incorporated into the project design documents. SMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or other appropriate agency addressing oversight to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials (including groundwater) if encountered during demolition, earth-moving activities (such as grading) and construction activities. Proof of approval or actions for site work required by the oversight agency must be provided to the Palo Alto Building Department prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits. 18. MITIGATION MEASURE 1.4. MHEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN: A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) will also be prepared to provide the protocols for site-specific training, personal protective equipment, monitoring, decontamination measures, etc. The general contractor will be required to incorporate the provisions of the HSP into their site health and safety program. The HSP will outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. Each contractor working at the site shall prepare a health and safety plan that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site operations that includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. Employees conducting earthwork activities at the site must complete a 40-hour training course, including respirator and personal protective equipment training. Upon construction completion, an environmental regulatory closure report should be prepared demonstrating that the soil and groundwater were handled according to requirements of the SMP. 19. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 20. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 21. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Graham Owen, at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION 22. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: At minimum, the following off-site improvements are required as part of this project. a. The project shall relocate the nearest bus stops to provide an accessible path of travel from nearest transit stops to the project site. The bus stops shall be located by the existing driveway to the project site, with both stops on the far sides of the new crosswalk (see comment below).Relocated bus boarding areas shall be a minimum of 50-feet long and 8-feet wide. The boarding areas shall also have clear areas for boarding and alighting buses per VTA standards. VTA has been notified of this proposed change and provides support for the increased access for passengers. Please contact transportation staff to discuss additional design criteria. b. A high visibility, ladder style crosswalk with curb ramps shall be added across Hanover, just south of the existing driveway, to provide pedestrian access between the relocated bus stops and the project site. The design of the crosswalk shall include a median refuge island and rectangular rapid flashing beacons with signage. Striping shall be two 12-inch wide transverse lines with 24-inch wide longitudinal stripes 48-inches on center. c. Install pedestrian warning signage in advance of the crosswalk (W11-2, W16-9P) and at the cross walk (W11-2, W16-7P placed back-to-back). Include an updated signage plan showing existing and proposed striping along project frontage. d. Install wayfinding signage along the project drive aisle and at the entrances to the parking structure to provide clear wayfinding for vehicles entering and exiting the structure. e. To encourage bicycle access around and to the project site, the access point from Hanover Street to Bol Park Bike Path should provide a safe connection for bicyclists. Make roadway design and striping changes to provide westbound bicyclists on Hanover Street with a protected area to cross from the bike lane to Bol Park Bike Path. Design shall be coordinated with Transportation staff and subject to Transportation staff review. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 23. Based on the City information the site dimensions are 570-ft by 1,805-ft, however the ALTA provided shows that site may have been subdivided into leased parcels. Provide a copy of the recorded map that created the lease lines. 24. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Provide an analysis that compared the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 25. 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. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective January 1, 2016, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the Building permit review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third- party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. If pumps are required, plot and label where the pumps will be located, storm water runoff from pumped system shall daylight onto onsite landscaped areas and be allowed to infiltrate and flow by gravity to the public storm drain line. Storm water runoff that is pumped shall not be directly piped into the public storm drain line. 26. Provide the storm water treatment plan that shows the drainage areas and C3 treatment areas. Include the table analysis for the pervious and impervious areas. Plan shall be stamped and certified by the third party reviewer. Add language about treatment area being sized to handle pervious and impervious areas. 27. Bioretention swales shall be designed to use the full swale length for treatment, place the bubbler (outlet) and catch basin (inlet) at the ends of the swale. Other utilities shall not be installed within the bioretention areas. 28. 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”. 29. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a conceptual grading and drainage plan. Include the existing storm drain system, if any, identify if the existing system is to be removed or remain to serve the site. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. 30. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include a table that shows the earthwork (cut and fill) volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans including Rough Grading and Shoring Plans are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available on our Public Works website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 31. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for access, crane locations (if any), tree protection measures, etc. 32. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 33. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall prepare a construction logistics plan for the work associated with the Excavation and Grading 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, 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. Plan shall also indicate if the bus stop will need to be relocated. 34. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. Since the existing storm drain line is to remain, plot and label the line on the shoring plans. 35. See attached Notice to Owners/Applicants planning to Dewater and Construction basements in Palo Alto. Please review this letter, if dewatering is required the applicant shall submit the items listed on this Notice. Alternatively provide a note on the plans to show the depth of where groundwater was found and the depth of the exacavation for the proposed 2 story basement. 36. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered will be ______ feet below existing grade. 37. DEWATERING: Basement excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. The street work permit to dewater must be obtained in July to allow ample to time to dewater and complete the dewatering phase by October 31st. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 38. WATER FILLING STATION: Due to the California drought, applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 39. GROUNDWATER USE PLAN: A Groundwater Use Plan (GWUP) shall be submitted for review for any project which requires dewatering. The GWUP, a narrative that shall be included in or accompany the Dewatering Plan, must demonstrate the highest beneficial use practicable of the pumped groundwater. The GWUP shall also state that all onsite, non-potable water needs such as dust control shall be met by using the pumped groundwater. Delays in submitting the GWUP can result in delays in the issuance of your discharge permit as Public Works requires sufficient review time which shall be expected by the applicant 40. See attached Notice to Owners/Applicants planning to Dewater and Construction basements in Palo Alto. Please review this letter, if dewatering is required the applicant shall submit the items listed on this Notice. 41. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, pad elevation, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.28 and Grading & Drainage Guidelines for Residential Development form for guidelines. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 42. NOTICE OF INTENT: If the proposed development disturbs more than one acre of land, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post construction Best Management Practices (BMP) for storm water quality protection. Provide the WDID # directly on the Grading and Drainage Plan. 43. 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. 44. 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.” 45. 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. 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. At minimum the curb and gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage shall be shown to be replaced. As discussed at DRC, the applicant may be required to relocate the sidewalk behind the planter strip along the project frontage, however this will need to be coordinate with the existing trees in the area. 46. PAVEMENT: 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 portions of Hanover Street based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 47. 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. 48. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan. 49. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION – The plan set shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” An electronic copy of this plan is available on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL 50. 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 $381 (FY 2015) C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. FIRE DEPARTMENT 51. Provide two fire rated stairwell enclosures with roof hatch access. PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION 52. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering: Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 53. 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) 54. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system 55. 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 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 56. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 57. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following: (1) Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; (2) Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter; (3) Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. (4) Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or (5) Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter. 58. 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. 59. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 60. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 61. 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. 62. Undesignated Retail Space:PAMC 16.09 Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met: Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project: A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes I. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2) II. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. III. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons. IV. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation example below. V. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the plans. VI. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5) VII. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture available options or adequate visibility. VIII. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs. IX. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004) X. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans. B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes XI. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. XII. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation. XIII. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are not limited to: a. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks b. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) c. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD d. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks e. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens f. Prep sinks g. Mop (janitor) sinks h. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD. i. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures j. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking equipment with drip lines k. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks XIV. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD: a. Dishwashers b. Steamers c. Pasta cookers d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens e. Hand sinks f. Ice machine drip lines g. Soda machine drip lines h. Drainage lines in bar areas XV. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)). XVI. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas. XVII. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5) C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) XVIII. Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. XIX. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. XX. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD. XXI. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. XXII. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) XXIII. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful. E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC) Sizing Criteria: GCD Sizing: Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCD Volume (gallons) Pre-rinse sink 4 8 500 3 compartment sink 3 21 750 2 compartment sink 3 35 1,000 Prep sink 3 90 1,250 Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500 Floor drain 2 216 2,000 Floor sink 2 Example GCD Sizing Calculation: Note: All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be resubmitted to Water Quality. It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal) The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. In addition, if R&D involves processes that generate wastewater from wet processes, an industrial discharge permit may be required. Please contact 329-2122 for any questions. UTILITIES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 63. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total 1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4 1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3 2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6 1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2 1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9 2 2 4 Floor drains 2 8 1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total: 30 (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. 64. 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. UTILITIES – ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 65. The electric primary power for this project will come from an existing underground system along Hanover Street. 63. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 64. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 65. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 66. If this project requires padmount transformer, the location of the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. 67. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 68. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 69. The location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. CPAU prefers that the main switchboard, or main switch and meter panel, to be an outdoor gear and away from traffic if possible. 70. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s main switchboard. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 71. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards. 72. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 73. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 74. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 75. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. 76. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 77. The site plan drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e. conduits, boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities. 78. The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads, streetlights system, etc.) on the property parcel map. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground Inspector. 79. The tentative parcel map shall show all required easements as requested by the City. 80. 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. 81. 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. 82. 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 30 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 83. 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. 84. 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. 85. 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. 86. 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. 87. 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. 88. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 89. 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. 90. 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. 91. 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. 92. 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. 93. 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 94. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. 95. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 96. 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. 97. 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. GREEN BUILDING 98. CALGreen Checklist: The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project applicant must indicate the requirements on the Planning Application. The submittal requirements are outlined here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. 99. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. 100. Energy Efficiency: If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) 101. Commissioning: If the project is a new building over 10,000 square feet, then the project must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code section 5.410.2 for Planning Approval. The project team shall re-submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) in accordance with section 5.410.2.1 with an updated Basis of Design (BOD) in accordance with 5.410.2.2 that reflects the design elements finalized between Planning Approval and Permit Submittal. The project shall also submit a Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3. 102. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 103. Recycled Water Infrastructure: If the project is greater than 100,000 square feet and is not within the boundaries of a recycled water project area, then the project must install dual plumbing for use of recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing. PAMC 16.14.300 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 104. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 105. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 106. Landscape Efficiency: If the project is a non-residential new construction project with a landscape of any size included in the project scope, then the project must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2 in accordance with the Emergency Drought Regulations. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA). For projects submitting for permit between June 1st, 2015 and December 1st, 2015, the project shall use an ET adjustment factor (ETAF) of 0.55 for landscaped areas. Special Landscape Areas (SLA) will be given an allowance of 0.45. The resulting ETAF for SLA shall be 1.0. (PAMC 16.14 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) and the Emergency Drought Regulations link below: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/2015TriCycle/BSC- Meetings/Emergency-Regs/HCD-EF-01-15-ET-Pt11.pdf For projects submitting for permit after December 1st, 2015, the project shall follow the updated regulations found on the Department of Water Resources website: http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/ 107. Construction & Demolition: If the project is a nonresidential new construction or renovation project and has a value exceeding $25,000, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 108. Construction & Demolition: If the project includes non-residential demolition, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2 for demolition. PAMC 16.14.270 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 109. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment: If the project is a new non-residential structure, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5324. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5324 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details. The following are required at Post-Construction after 12 months of occupancy. 110. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 111. Provide a Transplanting Plan that includes all steps for the successful relocation of any tree, including health enhancement bio treatments and automatic irrigation schedule with timer. 112. Provide an appraisal of value for all trees to be relocated and protected in the new landscape conditions, and include the landmark oak #21. 113. Provide an updated Tree Protection Report that includes detailed attention to all perimeter trees and oaks for any grading, trenching, temporary lines for seasonal irrigation, etc. Include a tree inventory map of all trees in the report. 114. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City Standards, Regulations and information: a. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree. d. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 115. BUILDING PERMIT CORRECTIONS/REVISIONS--COVER LETTER. During plan check review, provide a separate cover letter with Correction List along with the revised drawings when resubmitting. State where the significant tree impacts notes occur (bubble) and indicate the sheet number and/or detail where the correction has been made. Provide: 1) corresponding revision number and 2) bubble or highlights for easy reference. Responses such as “see plans or report” or “plans comply” are not acceptable. Your response should be clear and complete to assist the re-check and approval process for your project. 116. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating the duration and monitoring program. The appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees to remain shall recognize the location of each tree in the proposed development. Listed separately, the appraisal may be part of the Tree Survey Report. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plan Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director’s approval. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for the 150% of the appraised replacement value of the following 23 Designated Trees: (ID numbers to be determined), to be retained and protected.. The total amount for this project is: $__To Be Determined with Urban Forestry staff. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees remain and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program shall end two years from date of final occupancy, unless extended due to tree mortality and replacement, in which case a new two year monitoring program and annual evaluation report for the replacement tree shall begin. Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review and approval. The final report shall summarize the Tree Resources program, documenting tree or site changes to the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care maintenance practices for the property owner(s). The owner or project sponsor shall call for a final inspection by the Planning Division Arborist. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be two years (or five years if determined by the Director) from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. A new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be readapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. 117. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #2-6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, Arbor Resources, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. 118. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 119. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Plans with Public Trees shall show (a) Type II street tree fencing enclosing the entire parkway strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline (for rolled curb & sidewalk or no-sidewalk situations.) c. Add Site Plan Notes. i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351 "; iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496-5953.” v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 120. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly-owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. d. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” e. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T-2, or specific approval communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 121. LANDSCAPE PLANS f. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, g. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. ix. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. x. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). h. Add Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: i. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. ii. Note a turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) for best tree performance. i. Add note for Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections and Verification to the City. The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letters of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for each of the following: i. All the above landscape plan and tree requirements are in the Building Permit set of plans. ii. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable. iii. Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. iv. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. 122. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 123. 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. 124. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, Arbor Resources 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. 125. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 126. 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. 127. 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. 128. 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. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 129. 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). 130. 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. 131. 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. 132. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2552) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 133. MAINTENANCE. 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. 1 Owen, Graham From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Michael E. Palmer Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:18 PM Owen, Graham; Gerhardt, Jodie Sharad Patel; Anne-Marie Macrae; Jessica Liu Palmer Fwd: draft of letter Dear Mr. Owen, Ms. Gerhardt, A group of the neighbors on Matadero Ave. and Matadero Court, close to the proposed new building at 3223 Hanover St. (formerly 3251 Hanover St.) has continuing concerns about the proposed plans for the property. We would like to formally state these concerns again here for the ARB. 1)It looks like the architects revised the latest design to provide opaque spandrel panels for the bottom 30 inches at the facade facing Matadero, but that still leaves a significant amount of glass causing light pollution. The issue of how many foot‐candles of light are measured at the property line is sort of a red herring ‐ the fact of the matter is that if the lights are on in the building, we will be able to see it from our second floor ‐ for most, the bedroom floor. Attached is a PDF comparing the subject property with the other office buildings on Hansen Way, Hanover St., Porter Drive, and Hillview Ave. The subject property has an almost entirely (100%) glass facade, which is out of keeping with the other buildings in the neighborhood. Most of the other buildings in the neighborhood ‐ both old and new construction ‐ are 25%‐30% glass on their facades. Please see the following PDF for photos of approx. 30 neighboring buildings: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gak5po41nu3u6gy/3223%20hanover%20neighbors.pdf?dl=0 In addition, the subject property ‐ unlike most of the neighbors shown in the PDF ‐ is directly abutting residences in the bucolic Barron Park neighborhood. The light spilling from the property at night will significantly affect the peace and calm of our neighborhood. 2)The issue of traffic noise is not adequately addressed with an approach driveway and parking lot placed exactly where the residences are. In all meetings, they speak of building setbacks at 90’+ when we speak of sound and light. The approach road is at 50’ mark ‐ the closest point to the residences. This affects the residents in the lower part of Matadero. No attempts have been made to move this driveway or these 26 parking stalls closer to Hanover entrance, although there is the clear potential to do so. The light and sound are issues have been raised with Sand Hill from the first meeting onwards. They have made remarks that these will be mitigated, but we do not see that much has been done with the design to expressly mitigate these issues. 3)The other issue that remains to be resolved is the Design Enhancement Exception request to exceed the 35’ height limit by 11 feet for features to allow for access to a future roof deck. The sightline diagrams they provided did not show those enclosures. 2 4)Sand Hill had offered in a meeting with the neighbors to move the transformer further from the residences (to a point on the driveway closer to Hanover); but in fact it has been moved closer to the residences in the latest drawings. These transformers often emit a loud buzz; it should be placed further from homes. 5)There appears to be a back patio with tables near residences; this had been described verbally as a "bike storage area" but the drawings show an employee gathering area, again near the residences. Previously, we had a problem with Lockheed employees smoking in the back of the building. Thanks very much for your consideration, The Matadero Ave and Matadero Court Neighbors Group 3 2 2 3 H a n v o v e r, P a l o A l t o Project Narrative - Formal ARB Review 2 January 26, 2017 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 our proposed project on April 7, 2016 and first Formal review on January 19, 2017. We appreciated the comments and are pleased to provide this revision to the design. The comments fall in these four categories: 1.The DEE is not allowed. 2.Improve the site circulation by addressing the following concerns: a)Where does Uber pick up or taxis drop off? b)How to pedestrians and bikes entering the lower level of the garage make their way to the vertical circulation up to the courtyard? c)How do drivers know whether to enter the lower garage, upper garage, or continue up to the courtyard level? d)In general, how can site circulation for all forms of transport work elegantly and intuitively. 3.Prove that the the building sustainability strategy will achieve Palo Alto’s aggressive energy goals. 4.Provide more detail of the lower meadow that is being held in reserve for more building or parking. Item 1 DEE We no longer seek the DEE that would have allowed stairs and elevator for a roof deck. There is no roof deck. Item 2 Site Circulation We appreciate this comment and are excited that the changes we propose in response to your suggestions do indeed make the project better. We now propose a hierarchy of entry points on the site so that arrival is intuitive and elegant. Taxis, Ubers, Pedestrians, Visitors and Bikes would all be visually guided to enter the garage at the lower level; the first place you come to when you enter the site at the lower level. To make it intuitive, the lower garage entry portal has been enhanced and raised so you can see all the way to the vertical circulation of the new Lower Lobby beyond where a major light well is now proposed. Way finding signage is integrated into the portal design. We have made the driveway to the drop off area a straight path from the garage entrance instead of having to previously weave through parking lanes. 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 2 Palo Alto, California January 26, 2017 Enhanced lower garage entry portal with sidewalk that connects it to Hanover and one of the bus stops. Roofs of the building beyond are visible. To encourage pedestrian and bike traffic, there is a bike and pedestrian sidewalk at the garage entrance. This also allows bikes and pedestrians to arrive at the garage and enter the portal on their own sidewalk without having to cross vehicular traffic along the site. The entry portal has been moved further along the drive (south) so that it is now on axis with the Lower Lobby. 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 All public activities are concentrated at the Lower Lobby including Drop Off, Stair & Elevator, Bike Room, ADA parking and Light Well. The experience would be like entering a hotel’s Porte Cochere. The light well at the Lower Lobby has been expanded significantly and planting is located within. This creates a visual connection to the courtyard above, as well as light and planting in the garage itself. 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 4 Palo Alto, California January 26, 2017 Other Entry Points: The upper garage floor will be used primarily by the project’s users; people that know that opportunity exists. The second floor also enjoys the light well as shown in the previous image. The upper parking area, by design is modest to minimize activity and the resultant noise that might affect our neighbors. Access to that portion of the site, and the courtyard level, is required by the fire department for emergency access. This small parking court provides an opportunity to drop people off, pick up a group of people at grade, or be available for other situations where grade level access to the courtyard level is desirable. Arriving at the courtyard from the lower lobby, or the upper drop off, you find yourself at the entrance to the main lobby. Item 3 Sustainability & Energy A concern was raised that, because the building is primarily glass, it may not meet Palo Alto’s aggressive energy goals as follows: 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 We know from our experience designing many millions of square feet of LEED projects in Palo Alto that the most effective strategy the architect can utilize in commercial design is to shade the building. Note that this is not the case in residential buildings where insulation to keep heat in is the primary challenge. This project proposes a shading-based solution similar to our Net Zero project at 1400 Page Mill. That project shades at the window level however, creating a complex fabric of horizontal and vertical sun shades. Our four building project at 1050 Page Mill is LEED Platinum and also uses shading at the windows. There we evolved the fabric of shades to be more transparent in keeping with that project’s goal to “bring the outdoors in.” Our goal was to make the solution simpler and just as effective. This project seeks to explore another approach to shading in keeping with the butterfly theme of the project. Here the primary shading occurs at the roof. It is simpler and creates a light organic solution to address the same challenge. In response to the ARB’s concern, the design team prepared the initial energy model. The project meets our shared goal for sustainability as follows: Please consider this an preliminary model as the team continues to study the most appropriate mechanical system. It is conservative in that it is based on an RTU system. We will possibly use a VRF system that is even more efficient. With the conservative system modeled below, however, we are 12.7% better than standard which exceeds Palo Alto’s requirement. Item 4: Future Reserve Area Planting Future flexibility is a goal for this project as the world adopts new ways that people will move about. On both the upper courtyard and the lower meadow we have preserved space for future building or parking (the current proposal for replacement square footage only uses 25% of the 40% allowable FAR. Still it is important that those reserve areas are well thought out and designed in their interim state. The upper courtyard area with the garage below is designed with a tapestry of gardens. The lower meadow area will be planted as a meadow. 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 6 Palo Alto, California January 26, 2017 Enhancements to the meadow include preservation of additional existing sycamores and (6) new 24” box trees (3 black oak and 3 arbutus), clustered along pedestrian/bike path and/or infill to augment existing tree canopy. Drifts of native shrubs (manzanita, coffeeberry and ceanothus) is also proposed to enrich the edges of meadow along the driveway, bike/pedestrian paths and street frontage, and compliment the native hydroseed mix already proposed. 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 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) Attachment H Project Plans and Initial Study 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 and the Initial Study 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. To view the project plans, open the attachment named “January Plans”. 6. To view the Initial Study prepared for the application, open the attachment named “3223 Hanover Street – Initial Study”. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7731) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/2/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1545 Alma Street Multi-Family Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1545 Alma Street [16PLN- 00283]: Consideration of an Architectural Review Application to Allow an Addition to an Existing Single-Family Residence and the Construction of two Additional Units on a 10,000 Square Foot lot. The Project Also Requests a Design Enhancement Exception for Driveway Width and Distance From the Adjacent Property. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction) Zoning District: RM-15 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 findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The applicant requests Architectural Review approval of a 3-unit condominium development. The existing single family residence would undergo a renovation and second story addition, and two new residential units would be constructed in the rear of the property. The Zoning District for the property is RM-15, which permits multiple density projects. The request also includes a Design Enhancement Exception for the driveway width and distance between the edge of the driveway and the property line. The driveway curb-cut and initial portion of the driveway currently exists to serve the existing unit on site. Draft findings are included in support of the project including architectural review, context- based and design enhancement exception findings. The Board is encouraged to review the project and provide comment on its design and relation to surrounding properties. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The Board may continue the project or forward a recommendation to the Director based on the draft findings and conditions, or as modified by the Board. Background Project Information Owner: Manish Baldua Architect: Kelvin Chua of Topos Architects Representative: Not Applicable Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 1545 Alma Street Neighborhood: Old Palo Alto Lot Dimensions & Area: 50’ wide by 200’ deep (10,000 square feet) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: No Historic Resource(s): No; property reviewed and found to not have any historic significance. Existing Improvement(s): 1,824 square feet; 1-story; 22 feet in height. Built in 1924. Existing Land Use(s): Single family Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-2 (Single-family & two-family uses) West: RM-15 (multi-family uses) East: R-2 and RM-15 (single-family, two-family and multi-family uses) South: R-1 (across from Alma Street and train tracks –single-family uses) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: DigitalGlobe, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Google 2017 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: RM-15 Comp. Plan Designation: MF Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes 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. 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 applicant proposes to convert an existing single family residence on a 10,000 square foot RM-15 zoned property into a three-unit condominium development. The existing structure with elements of Spanish Revival architecture will remain and includes a renovation at the rear of the building, which results in 197 fewer square feet to the building. Two new units will be added in the rear portion of the lot, detached from the main residence (1,644 and 1,641 square feet respectively). The request also includes a Design Enhancement Exception for the driveway width and distance between the edge of the driveway and the property line. The driveway already exists to serve the single-family residence and is being extended to the rear to provide access to the new two units. The two new units and the renovation to the existing unit share a contemporary design using stucco and brighter color palettes. The existing single-family unit is Spanish in design, however, the proposed addition is similar to the design of the new units. 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. Design Enhancement Exception (DEE): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.050. DEE applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendation are for 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. DEE 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located in Old Palo Alto, where there is a mix of single and two-story residences with varying architectural styles ranging from craftsman to Spanish and contemporary styles. Landscaping is very mature including large street trees. The 10,000 square foot property is a deep dimensioned lot that takes access from a busy street (Alma Street) as shown in the aerial photograph, above. The lot is typical in size and it appears that other lots in the area have been subdivided in the past. The existing house was constructed in 1924 and includes an existing driveway that takes access from the street. Along that block where the subject property is located it is typical to have a single-story building with a driveway that has access to Alma. Across from the project site and on the other side of Alma Street is the Caltrain right-of-way, which causes noise and vibration as well as can result in traffic backing up on Alma Street because of the train crossing. Alma Street is a busy arterial road and the intersection with Churchill is nearby. The left turn storage lane is located in front of the property, making left turns in and out of the property challenging at certain times of the day. 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 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. Density Under RM-15 zoning, a single-family or a two-family unit is not permitted on the site since the lot is over the 8,500 square foot maximum. The only residential use allowed is multiple family, which is defined in the code as three or more units. Based on the size of the parcel and the RM- 15 density standards, a maximum of three units is allowed. Driveway Deviation In particular, the project proposes to deviate from the driveway standards. While the site is zoned multi-family, the existing development is single-family. The PAMC requires for multi- family projects that a distance of five feet be maintained from the edge of a driveway surface to the closest property line. The existing driveway has a 1’-6” separation, which does not comply 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. 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 6 with the standard for multi-family uses. Complying with the standard would require removal of a mature street tree and the modification of support for a utility pole. The project was reviewed by the City’s Transportation division and it was determined that the deviation can supported. This standard is intended to provide maximum separation between properties for exiting vehicles. Given the size of the lots the potential for high density cannot be realized despite the multi-family zoning designation. The likelihood of multiple vehicles exiting the adjoining properties at the same time is low. The project is designed so that there is sufficient room to exit the site in the forward facing position without the need to back out onto Alma Street. In their recommendations, it was stated that the driveway has sufficient distance from the nearby intersection of Alma and Churchill as to not cause any safety issues. Another driveway requirement is that the driveway be at least 16 feet wide (two-way for multi- family). The existing driveway is at its narrowest point nine feet wide. Given that there only three units and there is sufficient room at the middle and rear portions of the driveway for vehicles to maneuver, this is not considered an issue and the deviation is supported by staff. Performance Standards These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Specifically, the project was evaluated against trash, lighting, visual screening and landscaping, noise, parking and vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle site access. The project as conditioned is consistent with PAMC Section 18.23 Performance Standards as described in Attachment F. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The project is consistent with the Multiple Family Residential land use designation and provides density within the established range. The project is consistent with the following goals and policies: Policy L-6, Goal L-3, Policy L-12, and Policy L-48. The project proposes two-story units that are consistent with the neighboring properties. The front of the project remains single- story as viewed from Alma and the two-story height is achieved farther back on the property. The project proposes two additional units on a multi-family site that is within walking distance of a high school. The project proposes a design that includes a variety of materials that are consistent with the materials used in the neighborhood. The proposed renovation and new units are compatible with the existing on-site structure, however, provides sufficient contrast as well. A detailed list of the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies are outlined in Attachment C. 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 7 Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project provides the sufficient amount of parking for three units. The project includes a single driveway, which exists currently to provide access to the single-family unit on-site. The driveway extends to provide access to the two new units. In addition, the project meets the required bicycle parking requirements. As mentioned previously, there is sufficient room on site for the vehicles to maneuver so that the vehicles can exit forward and not have to back out. As mentioned previously, the deviations from the driveway standards can be supported. Given the proximity to the Alma/Churchill intersection, making a left into or out of the site may be a challenge depending on the time of the day, however, that is no different than the existing situation. Consistency with Application Findings The project is subject to the AR, DEE and context-based findings. These are summarized in Attachment B. 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, the project is found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) since the project provides two new dwelling units (not exceeding more than four-multi-family units) on a single site. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on February 17, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 17, 2017, which is 12 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. 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: ARB and DEE Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Conditions of Appproval (DOCX) Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment F: Performance Standards (DOCX) Attachment G: Applicant Project Description (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 1545 Alma Street 16PLN-00283 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: On balance, the project is in conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies: Goal L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each With Its Own Distinct Character and Within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project is a compact multi-family use development near a high school and provides a contemporary architectural style that is consistent with the surrounding development patterns. The project complies with the applicable zoning requirements for multi-family uses including, height, floor area ratio, setbacks, daylight planes and lot coverage. However, the project requires a Design Enhancement Exception to allow a driveway with a reduced width (16 feet to 9 feet) and proximity to the adjacent property line (5 feet to 1’-6”). The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan multi-family land use designation in that it the project is within the density range described in the Multi-Family Residential land use designation. The project proposes two-story units that are consistent with the neighboring properties. The project proposes two additional units on a multi-family site that is within walking distance of a high school. The project proposes a design that includes stucco and shingle roofing that is consistent with the materials used within the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The project proposes an addition to an older Spanish designed house. This addition is consistent with the design of the two new units proposed, using similar colors. This contemporary design is compatible with the surrounding development. The front of the existing unit remains unchanged and thereby does not detract from the streetscape. The project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. The project site is not applicable to any adopted design guidelines, however, the project is subject to performance standards for compatibility with surrounding uses. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The area is comprised of various residential buildings, of mostly single or two story heights. The project provides the required setbacks and relief between the subject property and surrounding properties. The project’s design is compatible with the surrounding residential development in that the frontage along Alma would remain a single-story and transition farther back into the property. The project maintains the Spanish designed building along Alma and transitions to a more contemporary design towards the rear. From Alma, the two rear two units are not easily seen. As conditioned, the project provides sufficient screening to maintain privacy for its occupants and neighbors. The project site includes adequate space for vehicles to maneuver and maintain exiting forward without backing out onto Alma. The project provides contemporary architecture with differing visual elements. All four sides of the buildings provide appropriate visual attention. At the same, the consistent design theme provides harmony and is compatible with the surrounding existing developments. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the structures on the site respect the adjacent Lots’ yards and respect the privacy of neighboring development. The site includes an appropriate amount of open space. the site includes a contemporary architectural style melded with a traditional Spanish style. Context-Based Design Criteria for Multi-family (1) Massing and Building Facades: The project is consistent with the neighboring massing. The project proposes three detached units and preservation of an existing home. The existing house will have a two story addition at the rear, preserving the single-story character at the street. Along this block there are single- story detached dwelling units. Consistency with this is done by maintaining the single-story building in the front with a small renovation at the rear of the building. There is a transition to the two new detached dwelling units to be two-story and this is consistent with the character of the buildings on the side streets (Churchill Avenue and Coleridge Avenue), which the rear of the subject property shares with properties that have access from those streets. (2) Low-Density Residential Transitions The project is surrounded by R-2 and RM-15 zoning. The proposed project is detached two- story units, which are consistent in scale with the adjacent two- story structures. The project is consistent with the daylight plane requirement as shown the elevation sheets of the project plans. The project’s roof pitch and height conform to the daylight plane exhibits providing the necessary transitions on the sides and rear of the property. (3) Project Open Space The project provides a combination of private and common open space areas. The project maintains a 24 foot setback along Alma Street. Until landscape grows to a mature height the balcony off the master bedroom at Unit B would have some views into the rear yard and at the rear facade windows of the 1551 Alma Street home. Adding another Brisbane Box tree between the two proposed trees along the right side lot line could reduce this privacy impact by providing a screening tree that would block the direct sight line to the neighbor’s rear yard. The project as conditioned meets the privacy requirements with the inclusion of the tree. (4) Parking Design The project meets the parking requirements and provides both covered and uncovered spaces. The driveway is existing, however, since the project is considered multi-family, the project is inconsistent with the width and distance to the property line. However, the applicant requests a design enhancement exception to allow the deviations, which have been reviewed and supported by the city’s professional transportation staff. (see findings related to the Design Enhancement Exception) (5) Large (multi-acre) Sites The project is only 10,000 square feet in size and therefore this criterion does not apply. (6) Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Given the small size of the lot, the project provides detached two-story units. This is consistent with providing the most varied amount of units on-site. (7) Sustainability and Green Building Design The project will be consistent with the City’s green building ordinance and the California Green Building Code. Such features include a permeable driveway and cool roofs. A summary of what the project proposes is on Sheets GB1.1 and GB1.2. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The surrounding area includes an eclectic variety of architectural styles with no one dominate theme. The area includes single family and multi-family uses with single and two-story structures. The project maintains the single-story presence at the street and the new construction is two-story. The Spanish architecture is maintained at the street and transitions to contemporary. While the colors are brighter, they do fit the theme of the architecture. Landscaping is added to blend the project with the surroundings. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The 10,000 square foot site accommodates the three units and provides the necessary area for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access. The project includes a bicycle locker for the units. The project’s design provides sufficient vehicular maneuvering to allow vehicles to exit forward rather than having to back out onto Alma Street. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Planting areas are arranged to accommodate multiple types of uses including vehicular traffic, pedestrian circulation, common outdoor areas, and private outdoor living spaces. on balconies and terrace locations, metal screens are used to provide screening. along fences, tall evergreen shrubs and trees are used. These and other planting areas create attractive and private spaces for the residents, buffer views of walls and fences, and create visual screens between neighbors. In common spaces and drive aisles, drive-able grass consisting of open-celled concrete pavers planted with native grass (more drought tolerant), softens the hardscape and makes it feel more like an open landscape area. native and low-moderate water-use plants will be used throughout the other landscape planting areas to augment the landscape and architecture. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A summary of the project’s compliance is on sheets GB-1.1 and GB-1.2 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures including storm water drainage, topsoil protection, low water consumption irrigation, reduction in cement use, pre-finished building materials in construction, and low water consumption fixtures. ATTACHMENT B DESIGN ENHANCEMNET EXCEPTION FINDINGS 1545 Alma Street 16PLN-00283 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. (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. The site is an existing 10,000 square foot lot with a single, single-story unit. An existing driveway provides access to the site to Alma Street. The proposal includes two additional units, which make the site a multi-family use instead of a single-family use. It is required for multi- family use sites to have a driveway that is set five (5) feet from the adjacent property line. The project only provides 1.5 feet in distance. In addition, for multi-family use site, a 16-foot driveway is required, where only a nine-foot driveway is proposed. If the project were to meet the standards, the existing house in the front would have to be modified to a point that affects the streetscape context. In addition, a street tree would need to be removed and a utility pole is also affected. It is not expected that a lot of traffic would be expected from the project. It is also sufficiently spaced from the intersection of Alma and Churchill. (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). Allowing the exceptions preserves the mature street tree and preserves the integrity of the existing house at the front of the property. Compliance with the code would require substantial renovation to the existing residence with minimal benefit to the neighborhood character. (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. The City’s transportation staff has reviewed the project and concludes that the exceptions would be consistent with this finding. The project provides sufficient on-site room to allow for maneuvering so that vehicles can exit forward without the need to back onto Alma Street. The code provides that Design Enhancement Exceptions may be considered for parking related deviations from the municipal code. ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1545 Alma Street 16PLN-00283 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "1545 Alma Street: Proposed 3-Unit Condominium,” stamped as received by the City on December 9, 2016 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner or designee shall pay the City’s development impact fees. 7. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. 8. PRIVACY. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner or designee shall demonstrate that adding another Brisbane Box tree between the two proposed trees along the right side lot line could reduce the privacy impact by providing a screening tree that would block the direct sight line to the neighbor’s rear yard. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL: 1. MAPPING: Applicant shall file for a Minor Subdivision Application with the Planning Department for creating three (3) or lots. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map requirements. The Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permit or grading and excavation permit. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. 2. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: Subdivision Improvement Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of the offsite improvements per PAMC Section 21.16.220. 3. COST ESTIMATE: Provide a construction cost estimate for the proposed off-site improvements. 4. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT 5. Parcel Map shall be recorded with the County Recorder. 6. 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”. 7. GRADING PERMIT: An Excavation and Grading Permit is required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 8. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide the following note on the Final Grading Plans. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. As a result, the proposed drainage system for the basement retaining wall will not encounter and pump groundwater during the life of this wall.” 9. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 10. The bubblers or bioretention areas shall not be closer than 10-feet from the front property line and 3-feet from the side property line. Provide these dimensions directly on the plans. Also the bioretention areas should only treat the impervious areas. 11. Plans provide don’t indicate if a permeable pavement system is proposed. If a permeable pavement system is proposed provide the combined and the individual lot square footage areas. Plan shall include a detail of the permeable pavement system. Provide the following as a note on the plans “Pervious paving systems of 3,000 SF or more requires installation inspection.” 12. Provide the following note on the Grading and Drainage Plan and/or Site Plan: “Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering (PWE) Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system (pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection, at a minimum 48-hours in advance by calling (650)496- 6929”. 13. UTILITY PLAN: shall be provided with the Building Permit and demonstrate if project’s storm drain utility will drain by gravity or if a pump is required. Public Works generally does not allow downspout rainwater to be collected, piped and discharged into the street gutter or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure. The utility plan shall indicate downspouts will be disconnected, daylight at grade, directed to landscape and other pervious areas of the site. Downspouts shall daylight away from the foundation. 14. If pumps are required plot and label where the pumps will be located, storm water runoff from pumped system shall daylight to the onsite landscaped areas allowed to infiltrate. 15. Bioretention swales shall be designed to use the full swale length for treatment, place the bubbler (outlet) and catch basin (inlet) at the ends of the swale. For example swales near building two appear to have inlet at the midway point instead of the ends. 16. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. Plot the construction fence, entrances, shoring, limits of over excavation, construction workers parking area, staging and storage areas within the private site for equipment and material. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. 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 that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 18. RESURFACING: Provide the following as a note on the plans “The applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing (grind and overlay) portions of Alma Street based on the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum full width of pavement resurfacing along the project frontages may be required.” Plot the limits of resurfacing on the plans. 19. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. The site plan and grading and drainage plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of- way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 20. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right- of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 21. 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. 22. UTILITIES: Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. 23. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 24. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 25. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496- 5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650- 496-5953). PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 1. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City Standards, Regulations and information: a. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree. d. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 2. BUILDING PERMIT CORRECTIONS/REVISIONS--COVER LETTER. During plan check review, provide a separate cover letter with Correction List along with the revised drawings when resubmitting. State where the significant tree impacts notes occur (bubble) and indicate the sheet number and/or detail where the correction has been made. Provide: 1) corresponding revision number and 2) bubble or highlights for easy reference. Responses such as “see plans or report” or “plans comply” are not acceptable. Your response should be clear and complete to assist the re-check and approval process for your project. 3. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating the duration and monitoring program. The appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees to remain shall recognize the location of each tree in the proposed development. Listed separately, the appraisal may be part of the Tree Survey Report. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plan Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director’s approval. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for the 150% of the appraised replacement value of the following 2 Designated Trees: (6 and 8), to be retained and protected. The total amount for this project is: $__To Be Determined with Urban Forestry staff. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees remain and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program shall end two years from date of final occupancy, unless extended due to tree mortality and replacement, in which case a new two year monitoring program and annual evaluation report for the replacement tree shall begin. Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review and approval. The final report shall summarize the Tree Resources program, documenting tree or site changes to the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care maintenance practices for the property owner(s). The owner or project sponsor shall call for a final inspection by the Planning Division Arborist. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be two years (or five years if determined by the Director) from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. A new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be readapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. 4. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #2-6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, ArborResources, Inc., shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. 5. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 6. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Plans with Public Trees shall show (a) Type II street tree fencing enclosing the entire parkway strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline (for rolled curb & sidewalk or no-sidewalk situations.) a. Add Site Plan Notes.) i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351 "; iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496- 5953.” v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 7. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly-owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. a. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T-2, or specific approval communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 8. LANDSCAPE PLANS a. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. ix. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. x. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). c. Add Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: i. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. ii. Note a turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) for best tree performance. d. Add note for Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections and Verification to the City. The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letters of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for each of the following: i. All the above landscape plan and tree requirements are in the Building Permit set of plans. ii. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable. iii. Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. iv. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. 9. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 10. 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. 11. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, Mayne Tree Expert Company, (650-593- 4400, 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. 12. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 16. 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). 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. POST CONSTRUCTION 20. MAINTENANCE. 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 D COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 1545 Alma Street / File No. 16PLN-00283 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Multi-Family Residential. The project proposes two new residences for a total of three residences. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The project proposes two-story units that are consistent with the neighboring properties. Goal L-3: Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering places. The project proposes two additional units on a multi-family site that is within walking distance of a high school. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The project proposes a design that includes stucco and shingle roofing that is consistent with the materials used within the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project proposes an addition to an older Spanish designed house. This addition is consistent with the design of the two new units proposed, using similar colors. This contemporary design is compatible with the surrounding development. The front of the existing unit remains unchanged and thereby does not detract from the streetscape. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 1545 Alma Street, 16PLN-00283 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-15 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximu m Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 10,000 sf (0.30 acres) 10,000 sf (0.30 acres) Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet 24 feet 24 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 170 feet 10 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet 5 foot 8 inches 6 feet Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Special Setback 24 feet – (Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps) 24 feet 24 feet Max. Building Height 30 feet as measured to the peak of the roof 22 feet Unit A: 22’-10” Unit B: 23’-2” Unit C: 24 feet Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Max. Site Coverage 35% (3,500 sf) 18% (1,824 sf) 34.9% (3,488 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 50% (5,000 sf) 18% (1,824 sf) 50% (5,000 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 35% (3,500 sf) Not Applicable 39.5% (3,948 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 200 sf per unit Not Applicable Unit A: 340 sf Unit B: 317 sf Unit C: 326 sf Minimum Common Open Space 100 sf per unit Not Applicable Unit A: 204 sf Unit B: 181 sf Unit C: 200 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit Not Applicable Unit A: 136 sf Unit B: 136 sf Unit C: 26 sf Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.10.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. Tandem Parking Allowed, with one tandem space per unit, associated directly with another parking space for the same unit 2 spaces 6 spaces (3 covered) Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) None. 3 spaces Performance Criteria 18.23 1545 Alma Street 16PLN-00283 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project will comply with the trash haulers requirements for detached dwelling units. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to the project’s residents. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. The project only includes residential uses. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project was reviewed by the City’s consultant architect and as conditioned, the project would provide sufficient screening to maintain privacy. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The project includes the addition of two detached dwelling units. It is not expected that these will cause any noise and vibration issues upon occupancy. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project provides covered and uncovered parking that is consistent with the code and the surrounding properties. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. The project will maintain an existing curb cut and driveway location, which requires a deviation request. However, given the amount of units on the small lot and the adjacent properties, the proposed deviation will not cause traffic conflicts. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 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 “1545 Alma 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 “1545 Alma Street 9 Dec 2016 Plans” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7707) Report Type: Meeting Date: 3/2/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes for February 2, 2017 Title: February 2, 2017 Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the February 2, 2017 Architectural Review Board meeting were made available to the Board members prior to the February 16, 2017 meeting date. The draft ARB minutes can be reviewed online at the City’s website listed below http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/arb/defautl.asp Hard copies of the minutes from the above referenced meeting will be available at the ARB meeting of February 16, 2017 being held at 8:30 am in the Council Chambers. Attachments: February 2, 2017 Minutes (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Members Peter Baltay, Wynne Furth, Gooyer. Absent: Chair Lew: Welcome to the Architectural Review Board meeting for February 2nd, 2017. I don’t see the on-air light on yet. Just wanted to check to make sure. OK, great. Chair Lew: Oh, Roll call. Silly me. Can we have a roll call, please? [Meeting moved back to agenda changes, additions or deletions] Oral Communications Chair Lew: Now is the time for oral communications for items that are not on the agenda. I don’t have any cards for that. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Lew: We can move onto agenda changes. Are there any? Vice Chair Kim: Attendance. [Meeting moved back up to Roll call.] Chair Lew: Do we have any changes on the agenda? Ok, thank you. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals None. Study Session Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3181 Porter Drive [16PLN-00209]: Recommendation on 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 99,415 Square Foot Office Building. This is a Designated Project ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: February 2, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared Pursuant to CEQA. Zoning District: RP. For more information, please contact Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org. (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 19, 2017) Chair Lew: I think we can move onto action item number 2 which is a public hearing for3181 Porter Drive. Recommendation on 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 99,415-square foot office Building. This is a designated project under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. An environmental assessment is an addendum has been -- to the Mayfield Development Agreement EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA. Zoning District is Research Park. So, Staff, welcome. Mr. Graham Owen: Thank you. My name is Graham Owen. I’ve been working with the applicant on this project at 3181 Porter Drive. This is application has previously come before the Board on January 19th, where it was reviewed. At that time, we didn’t have Draft Findings or Draft Conditions of Approval for the project. Just to restate what the application is for members of the public and just to also bring it back. This is a two-story office building which would encompass 99,415-square feet in the Research Park at 3181 Porter Drive. This is a Mayfield designated project and as such the allowable RAF on the site is .5 when normally the Research Park District allows for .4. At the Board hearing on January 19th, we were directed – Staff was directed to return on to the -- to the 2nd, to this hearing with Draft Conditions of Approval and Draft Findings so we’ve have provided those in a Staff report for you today. Also, there was direction to provide additional material, additional detail on the exterior wall panels, in particular, the concrete and, so I believe the architect is here and will be able to have a brief presentation about the material board. At this point, Staff has recommended approval of this project with the Draft Findings and Conditions that you have in the Staff report. Chair Lew: Great and you have 10 minutes. Mr. Mark Roddy: Great. Thank you. Good morning. It’s nice to see you all again. My name is Mark Roddy; I’m the design director of Smith Group JJR and I’m here representing the design team for 3181 Porter Drive. At our hearing on January 19th, you asked us to come back to you to provide some additional information on the detail of our wall panel design. You specifically asked about the following: 1. Was the dimensions of depth in regard to the windows and to the face of the GFRC. 2. Was the joints and vertical expression. 3. Additional information on the texture scale and detail of the board forming of the concrete. We’re here today to address these issues and answer your questions. This image will look familiar from last time however, we added some more information to it. This image of the main entry to the lobby from the parking court shows the board from texture along with the joint lines to the left of the image. This actually represents the location of all the ¾-inch joint lines, however, it is our intent to camouflages the vertical joints to give a consistent look across the surface of the wall panel. The horizontal joint that you can see will be visible. This is a ¾-inch joint that will be consistent all the way around the building at that level. The following slides we’re going to show you how we intend to accomplish this strategy. In this detail, wall section and elevation, you can see the strategic approach to the constructability to maximize the panel sizes that result in the location of the joints. Also, I’d like you to note the frames of the square openings, the textured panels and the smooth beveled surfaces where the windows are inset. In regards to the location of the joints; it has everything to do with how the panels are constructed and, so you can see all the verticals – makes a lot of sense – lines up where the windows are for movement etc. In this drawing, these are three details that show the different head and sill conditions of the windows. There’s a lot of detail in here. These are almost a kind of construction document level but I think the point – is at the top of the slide, I think it’s worth you all understanding is that all the glazing conditions, the punch window openings, there’s a 7-inch dimension from the face of glass to the face of the GFRC. In the key areas where we have the framed condition – those square areas that I talked about before, those are 13- inches from the face of glass so you get a kind of secondary element that actually comes out past the face of the GFRC. Obviously, the intent of this, along with the previous page I showed with the design, is City of Palo Alto Page 3 to give a sense of variation of depth and shape within the façade as it moves around the building. In this 3-dimension view on the left, you can see that it shows all the components of the wall system. We’ve also indicated all the vertical lines and of course, the horizontal lines but as previously mentioned, we do not want to express the vertical joints. What we did was we worked with the subcontractor to create a mock-up to validate our intent. If you look at the bottom image – the bottom image in the middle of the slide, you can see our mock-up there with a dimension and you can’t even hardly – I don’t think you can see it but there’s a ¾-inch joint and then we’ve put our sealant material in there to match the coloration of the panel. Along, with the vertical expression, the color matching; you don’t really even see that vertical line. The other images at the upper – on the right-hand side of the slide, demonstrate our mockups that we’ve created and really show how light is going to affect -- with the shade and shadow, create this dynamic texture. This will be a very dynamic surface. Then lastly, I wanted to show you – I’m sorry, let me back up. The top upper image in the middle was an image taken about 75 – 100-feet away and, so the interesting thing there is that even from a distance, the texture and the shadow will actually get picked up. The last image I want to talk about is the one in the middle and with all the dimensions (Inaudible) on it and that is an image of the sample that we’ve brought today to show you and this is exactly how the subcontractor is building this. There’s a varying size of wood panels from 1-inch to 2- inches to 4-inches – varied along the mock-up. That is then standardized or replicated so there’s a kind of a consistent – you know, you take that – your kind of make it consistent across it to create the pattern that we’ve created. Then, the dimension of the rib that comes from typical board formed concrete that comes out – that’s 3/8-inch tall. So, that’s how far that’s coming out. Then, of course, as I mentioned before, the ribs are then broken with a rubber mallet which we replicated here; which we also did on-site at the factory to do that – which gives something that is actually factory made, all of sudden to have a very kind of handcrafted and custom quality to the panels. We guarantee there’s not going to be any other wall panels quite like it which is pretty cool. Then quickly, this image we showed last time, I think this one is really great because it just gives you the sense of human scale. These are the folks that are building it here. With that, we hope to get your support today and thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you. Are there any questions? Sure. Vice Chair Kim: Just a quick question on the last slide that we were looking at, A4.7. I did notice that it looks like the two pictures in the top right almost show a study of not breaking the ribs and then breaking the ribs. It looks like to the left of the panel the ribs are intact and then to the right of the panel they are more rough. It is your intent to make them rough, am I correct? Mr. Roddy: Yeah, that was just a photograph of us in process of taking the original piece and then customizing it. Vice Chair Kim: None of them will be smooth ribbed, not broken? Mr. Roddy: They will all be broken to some degree, yes. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Kyu, why don’t you – I don’t think we have any other questions so why don’t you go ahead and start on any comments. Vice Chair Kim: Alright. Thank you for coming back especially, in such a short time period. I think project looks great. I think I asked for some additional details that you’ve provided. I was not so much concerned with the detail itself but I just wanted to make sure that things such as the spacing of the ribs and the detail of how that’s actually going to come together were thought out before we approve the project. I appreciate the detail that you’ve gone into and I think that it will be a stunning building and very unique in the way that you’ve gone about these panels. I don’t have too many other comments. They are very minor. I was alerted to the fact that the area has changed a little bit because you’re counting the cases in the first now and I noticed that an extra parking space was added to accommodate that change in area but overall, I’m very pleased with what I’m seeing and I think we can recommend City of Palo Alto Page 4 approval for the project. That vertical joint is pretty impressive. If I have any concerns regarding that, it would be that the joint compound as the building wears may begin to discolor differently than the concrete. I think you will be fine and thank you. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: I can support this project. I find it’s a beautiful and elegant design solution. I find your treatment that you showed us today is especially nice and easily supports findings #3. I can support the whole thing and easily make these findings now. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, me too, I can support the project as is. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I look forward to seeing it built. I had one question for Staff on finding #4. Unfortunately, I didn’t print out the minutes from last time but I to can make all the findings and support the project but finding 4 pertain (inaudible) among other things to pedestrian support. I was able to make that finding because the plan that was submitted includes pedestrian accessible seating in that front area. I wonder if we could add a sentence regarding that so that it doesn’t disappear in some redesign. Mr. Owen: I think that can be added, absolutely. Chair Lew: Wynne is that all? Board Member Furth: It is. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. Board Member Furth: As I said, I look forward to seeing it. Chair Lew: Excellent. I can also support the project. I think the only things that I wanted to add to the Draft Findings was in #5 with regard to landscape design. I think I just wanted to add that the existing turf lawn is being removed and not replaced, in kind. That’s huge – to me that’s a huge design departure in the Research Park and I think that’s something that is very important. Do we have a motion? Can we have a motion? Board Member Furth: It’s continued public hearing. Chair Lew: I’m sorry, I thought this was on – I forgot we – at the last meeting we were talking about doing consent. We are actually – Staff did the – [phonetic] Cheryl Lowenstine. Welcome, and you have 5 minutes. [Ms. Cheryl Lowenstine:] I don’t need that. Thanks very much. I’m just concerned that the allowable FAR is .4 but this is .5. Can anyone explain that to me? Chair Lew: I can. If the Staff wants to do it, that’s fine. I’ll start or Staff can start? We have the Stanford and Palo Alto came to the agreement – the Mayfield Agreement with regards to the playing fields on Stanford line that – Page Mill and El Comino and then, also they agreed – Stanford agreed to housing on the – there’s an El Comino site; also, the one on California Avenue and the square footage of that commercial was – I guess we were able to transfer? Transferred into a separate pool and that Stanford can use that square footage elsewhere in the Research Park as however, they decided to allocate it. At the time of that agreement, an EIR was done for the project – for the whole thing and so that’s – and City of Palo Alto Page 5 they have been using it on – I think the VMware site, is that correct? Then I’m not sure – there were maybe (crosstalk)… [Ms. Lowenstine:] It’s more like a bank? Is it like there is a banked amount of square footage? Chair Lew: It’s a banked amount and there is… [Ms. Lowenstine:] Thank you. Chair Lew: …at the end. It’s towards the end of the – they are at the bottom of the bank. [Ms. Lowenstine:] Thanks very much. Chair Lew: Thank you. Are there any other public speakers? I think now would be the time. Did you want to speak to this project? Ok, thank you. I’ll close the public hearing on this portion and we can – the Board can make a motion. MOTION Board Member Baltay: Can I move that we approve this project – recommend approval of this project with the findings in the Staff report? Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. Board Member Furth: Would you accept an inclusion of a reference to the seating? About the accessible seating – pedestrian seating? Board Member Baltay: Absolutely. Board Member Furth: Thanks. Chair Lew: As well as to the reference to turf? Board Member Baltay: Yes, yes. The reference to turf and seating that was mentioned during our discussion should be included. Chair Lew: Yes, and is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah. I’d be fine with that. Chair Lew: All in favor? Chair Lew, Vice Chair Kim, Board Member Furth, Board Member Gooyer, Board Member Baltay: Aye. Chair Lew: That passes 5-0. Thank you. MOTION PASSES 5-0 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 567 Maybell Avenue [15PLN-00248]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Four Single-family Residences and the Construction of 16 two-story single-family residences with basements. Environmental Assessment: Consistent with Previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Zoning Districts: R-2 and RM-15. For More Information, Please Contact Contract Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@mgroup.us. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Lew: We will move onto item #3 which is a public hearing for 567 Maybell Avenue. Consideration of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of four single-family residences and the construction of 16 two-story single-family residences with basements. Environmental assessment is it is consistent with previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Zoning Districts: R-2 and RM-15. Just take a quick break for a minute or two while the presentation is set up. Should we have the Staff report Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing? Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing: Yes, thank you. Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner. I did have a PowerPoint presentation for you briefly, just to discuss the summary of the project and some of the issues that Staff has found and then the applicant also has a presentation. The project is a 2.44-acre site located at the intersection of Clemo and Maybell Avenue. It’s surrounded by multiple of uses; single family, multifamily. There is a fire station and there’s a park. There is also a couple of schools along Maybell. Maybell does have a lot of pedestrian traffic when the schools are in session. It’s fairly close also to the El Camino Real Corridor. The project includes demolition of four existing single-family homes and the construction of 16 new single-family homes. The project – the last – went before a public hearing was in June with the City Council. That was for the tentative map for the subdivision request. Right now, we’re just looking at the architectural review. The key issue would be the architectural design and the context. You can see the site plan where you have 5 single-family units along Maybell. Four of the units do share a driveway so that reduced the amount of curb cuts. There is no access from Clemo – vehicular access from Clemo to Maybell so there is a private street that was created on site for the 11-other unit’s interior and those would go to Arastradero. From there, they can make a choice of where they would want to go. Each of these homes have – there are 8 different plan types but they each have a unique type of architecture. Spanning from your contemporary to your Spanish and they have a transitional type and the applicant can describe a little bit more about that program. Here’s the elevations of them and those are in your plans and packet as well. They are two-stories and they also include a basement. They are about 2000- square feet or so roughly. The height is not greater than 28-feet and as I mentioned, each home does have a basement. Some of the issues that we did raise where there is some excessive pavement for the shared driveways. As well as there is a placement of a detached garage that we think could be in a better location. Then there are also some roof pitches on the Spanish architecture types that we think can be more consistent amongst themselves. That would be – we wanted to get some direction from the Board on that. Just in detail, the excessive driveway areas along Maybell – that has to do with the shared driveways. You can see – I think the idea there is they are trying to make it so there is the right turning movement but just in consultation with our transportation Staff, that there is an opportunity to reduce that area and they can still make the turning radius. There are actually two detached garages that are part of this project and that’s at the hammerheads. There is lot 9 and then there is lot 14. Lot 9 is actually a good example that Staff found to be successful. The detached garage is actually opposite a rear yard so we think that is an appropriate location and that seems to work with the access to that site. The other – lot 14 which is on the opposite side, is a slightly smaller lot but again, you can see there is a detach garage but that detach garage is located opposite a front yard and that’s just not very typical to see that in a new subdivision. We are recommending that that detach garage mirror lot 9’s design and that is possible to do that. We also want to raise to the Boards attention roof pitch. Typically roof pitch on a Spanish is lower, not as steep. Actually, on these two levels, the roof pitch is different. The lower level has a lower pitch and then the upper level has a steeper pitch and, so we would like to see that more consistent and I think they can do that. The Environmental Review was already completed for the project back with the tentative map. The tentative map did contemplate these – the design including the basements and the 16 single-family units and they had the same site plan layout. That document was adopted and does cover this application. The motion is to recommend to conduct a public hearing and hearing the public comments and then continue to a date uncertain as there are no findings in the packet to consider. That concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions. The applicant is here with their presentation, thank you. Chair Lew: The applicant, welcome. You have 10 minutes. Mr. Ted O’Hanlon: Thank you, Board. Good morning. Thank you for seeing us. Let me introduce myself. My name is Ted O’Hanlon. I’m representing the owners, Golden Gate Homes. I have been working closely City of Palo Alto Page 7 with them for 3+ years now on this project and we’re happy to finally be in front of you and get some feedback on what we’re trying to build on this piece of land in South Palo Alto. I’m joined by our architects, Studio S Squared; they are based in San Jose. Sean Rinde is here and Eugene Sakai is making his way through the wet roads but should be here within the time of my chat. I want to keep mine short since I’m not actually an architect. I’m simply a Project Manager and I’ve been helping to manage the process and perhaps reserve some my time at the end to respond to some other comments we might here over this. Really high level here. We started with a 30-unit plan on the site. We know it zoned for a higher density and as we discovered as time went on that there just wasn’t the appetite for 30-untis. Then we discovered there wasn’t an appetite for 23-units in the neighborhood and as we started to form those relationship, we just saw that there’s time and there’s also doing something that people would like to see. We ultimately decided to get along and find a way to make a 16-unit plan work which the neighborhood was supportive of. We worked very closely over the course of the end of 2015 and 2016 to come up and ultimately, get our tentative map approved for 16 single-family homes; about the size of your normal Palo Alto lot. What we detach from that process was the architecture. Over the course of our applications to the City, however, we also represented that we had this notion of a contemporary home design. Generally, in the 30-unit plan and the 23-unit plans that aren’t part of this package but are out there, they were contemporary homes. As we got to know our neighbors as time went one, we also came to understand that as much as contemporary homes are enjoyed by some neighbors, some neighbors don’t and there is a good mix of different types of homes in this neighborhood. We came up with a new plan and that’s what you see before you; is 16 homes that are all individual in character. More than half of them not contemporary; seven of them are contemporary. Five of them are more of a Spanish/Mediterranean and traditional and four of them are transitional. I think it’s representative of all the homes that we see being built nowadays in Palo Alto for the past 10 or so years. In that mix, contemporary, transitional and Spanish, it seems to be the predominate types that we have. We tasked the architects with a tough job. We said to come up with 16 unique homes. We don’t want this to be a program such that you might have seen in other recent developments that have multiple units like at Red Wood Gate by Summerhill Homes, Sterling Park by Classic Communities and the Stanford faculty housing over by Escondido Elementary. Again, what you see is really 16 individual homes that actually fit cohesively well together. We have 8-floor plans so this isn’t a small task. These are very sharp pencils being used here to make these homes work within the code and be code compliant to all aspects of it; whether it’s site coverage, parking, building height, setbacks, etc. Four of these floor plans are one-offs. They are only used on one of the lots so that means that four of them are replicated with different types of elevations but we really feel like we have 16 different elevations which your job very hard and a lot of eyes to put on it. Since we do know our neighbors are conscientious of this project, one of the things that we did to accommodate them, aside from the density was to come up with this concept with the driveways on Maybell. Currently, there are four homes there with four curb cuts. It’s a very highly traveled street by children going to Terman, Briones, Gun and we wanted to limit the number of curb cuts so we can up with this concept to have four of the homes share two driveways. In order to accommodate turn radius, those driveways might appear a bit larger but those homes still fit the criteria of site coverage and our storm water drainage is still be met as well. We will be using pavers on those which are quite appealing. This is not going to be an asphalt driveway. They are quite visually appealing. We also felt that it’s beneficial for these homes to maybe provide some ancillary parking in addition to what’s required. Aside from the garage space and the carport perhaps for a guest or if a family might have a third car and that’s what those driveways accommodate and actually, all 16 of the homes do accommodate a third car parking. Rather than the service parking in the neighborhood which is sometimes challenged. Other neighborhood enhancements that I wanted to cover is we’re giving 10-feet of this land to the City to help connect the pedestrian to access Briones Park; one of Briones Elementary School, whatever it might be where there isn’t actually a sidewalk existing right now. We’ll be – the City will be dedicated that land. It will be designed with a planter strip and then 5-foot wide sidewalk. One of the other improvements that maybe isn’t met as quickly is the fact that the current homes on Maybell are 20-feet off of the curb. The new homes will be 20-feet from the dedicated land so they will actually be 30-feet from the curb. All the homes on Maybell will be further setback from they currently are. Another point to that is Clemo has these wonderful oak trees that will be preserved as part of this project. We’ve also been asked to plant 5 new oak trees along Maybell to extend that great tree canopy and we’ll also be relocating some of – a few of the smaller trees that are feasible to relocate onto Maybell as well so we City of Palo Alto Page 8 will further beautiful that street. Actually, tuck our new subdivision so to say, behind all these trees as time goes on and those oak trees proliferate. Again, you guys have dug into this sketch of the 16 homes and all the elevation. There’s quite a lot of variety and where does that variety born from? It’s born from a term that used all over Palo Alto. It’s used in Sheldon’s report about the eclectic nooks of architecture, all over Palo Alto and Palo Alto is proud of that, having a mixture of architecture and that’s something we’ve been seeing for the last 10-years, are these varieties. It already exists on Maybell Avenue. Whether it’s a contemporary home or traditional. Whether it's your Arastradero Park Apartments which is adjacent to the site. Whether it’s Barron Square which is townhome development in the 1980s or other homes that exist along Maybell. Whether it’s the ones that were built before 1976 which are actually still in the greater number of homes along the street but as time goes on, those might perhaps be turned into new homes such as – let me go back – 551 Maybell which was approved in December which is another contemporary home. I don’t know when they will get a building permit but it will add to the mix and the ecleticness of the neighborhood. Then there are other signals in the neighborhood that I like to call out that I think shows a variety here and that’s some of the institutional; one at Briones Elementary school, the Zen Hotel, and the Tan Plaza which seems to sit atop Maybell Avenue. Actually, these homes and the oak trees to be put on Maybell will provide a little bit of deflection of that. That’s my talk. I probably used my 10-minutes anyway but I thank you guys very much for your time. We look forward to your Q&A. I can either handle that or our architects can handle that. Again, thanks. Chair Lew: Ok, so we normally just allow 10 minutes for the total presentation but I will defer to Staff. It seems we have a lot of interest in this particular project. Maybe it would make sense to allow more time for their presentation and then the other thing too is after – then we’ll go to the public speakers and I’m thinking – we allow 5 minutes and I think we maybe have 6 speakers that will take – that might take 25 minutes and then we do allow a 10 minute – after the public speakers, we do allow a 10 minutes’ rebuttal time. We could use some of your rebuttal time for the presentation as well. How much time do you think you need for the architectural presentation? Can you do it in 5 minutes? Male (Applicant Team): We didn’t have anything to present. I think a lot of what Ted said is in alignment with our own design philosophy, our own analysis of the neighborhood. We really didn’t see a strong consistent style and I think in general, our own approach to new residential architecture is that it should be reflective of its time. I think that’s why the project skews somewhat to the contemporary but we didn’t want to go completely contemporary as you might have seen and other proposals for the site and probably before you and other sites around the City. Therefore, we did propose a mix to try to soften the overall stylistic approach. I think in general, we are in alignment with our client and feel this is an appropriate design approach to this site. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. We can move on now to the public speakers and we have 6. The first is Kenneth Schultz and the second is [Jennifer Fryling]. If you could come up to the microphone and you have 5 minutes. [Ms. Jennifer Fryling]: Thanks. Thank you very much, gentleman and lady. I live a couple blocks from the Maybell development and I’ve spoken with many neighbors that live along Maybell Avenue and them that expressed a strong dislike for the contemporary designs. They are along the Maybell frontage because they believe it is out of scale and character with the rest of the single-family homes on Maybell. Maybell Avenue currently has only 1 contemporary home of the 46 that are on Maybell Avenue. I actually had informed Golden Gates rep. this past year that the Maybell neighbors would prefer that the contemporary designs either fall on Clemo or the interior part of the development because those streets have less visibility. Clemo is a dead-end street and then the interior portion is a cul-de-sac. Maybell has thousands of kids and people and drivers that go through it so it’s a really high visibility area. The folks who live around there and actually live on Maybell – I live just a few blocks from there, would like to see less of the contemporary design because of just the fact that it’s pretty much considered one of -- all the design element, it’s generally considered one of the least popular and so it would just be more consistent with the neighborhood to go with what’s existing there which is eclectic but only one is contemporary. Because of lot sized and dimensions are about the same, like 6,000-square feet, I ask the ARB to please recommend that Golden Gate Homes swap out some of the contemporary designs along the Maybell City of Palo Alto Page 9 frontage with some of the other designs that are in the rest of the development. I think that the high cluster of the contemporary on – in one central location on Maybell is overwhelming and overpowering relative to the other single family homes that are on Maybell Avenue. Also, I had informed the Golden Gate reps. this past year that some additional Maybell neighbor feedback and the neighbors would like to look at seeing if the garages could be more adjacent to each other; those that are sharing a common driveway so that there are less paved hardscape and more of the greenery that is up front. I think the garages closer would maximize those two things with having still a driveway but then having lots of greenery if the garages were a bit closer together. Thank you very much for considering the feed from the Maybell neighbors. Chair Lew: Can I just clarify, your Jennifer? Great so then – I’m going to go back to the first speaker which would be Kenneth Schultz. Mr. Kenneth Schultz: Good morning. It’s an honor to be here. I’d really like to commend the developer for the level of effort and work that they’ve put into this. I think they came up with a very nice plan. I have a few reservations which I’ll tell you about but I really think it is very good and I hope at the end of the day you approve this project. Regarding styles, I personally am happy with any style as long as it’s well presented. When I look at the houses in this development, my feeling is that the contemporary house on lot 4 is a good example. Not necessarily because it is contemporary but because I think the design works. In contrast, a very similar floor plan, the same unit type on lot 2, I just don’t think belongs there. It looks more like the side of a house than the front of a house. It’s got broad, flat surfaces, tiny windows. It’s not a very friendly looking house. I would not want to live across from it but those are the same houses before you do the surface work and I think that if the architect took another look at that house, they could improve it quite a bit. There’s another – I think the only other contemporary on Maybell is lot #1. That’s an interesting looking house but I think the white framing is too bold. Maybe just toning down that color would do the job but as I said, I applaud a mix of houses. I’m not offended by contemporary but I’m not offended by anything else either. In the end, although I go up and down Maybell probably 4 or 5 times a day, I would, in the end, differ people whose homes face this project directly because they have to look out their window at it. If we have a difference of opinion, that’s ok. I defer to them. Regarding the driveways. I started out thinking that they should be smaller and there might be ways to do it but I actually spent some time with pencil and paper and pushing things around. I looked at the adjacent garage driveways and in the interior like buildings 10, 11 and 12, 13 and I actually concluded that I think that the Maybell driveways look better and that the portions of the driveways that curve to the left can be screened by fences or landscaping. The architectural designs or renderings actually suggest some of that. I – if – go ahead and take another look at those but be sure that you don’t make it worse. There – ok, now in general, I see an example of this all-over Palo Alto. I think there’s an overuse of heavy design elements that aren’t necessary. I especially see this in the interior housing, lots 10-12. A lot of heavy stone, window framing on one of the Spanish style house – up on top of the second story which tends to make the houses look ponderous, top heavy. They are kind of imposing on the street and I think that if the architect could take another look at these, they could find ways to make them look lighter, airier. Actually, make them look smaller without physically being smaller and it might actually enhance the values of the homes. That’s my own opinion but I think we see too many fake arches, heavy stone, all around town. I’ve seen really nice houses including some examples that were put up earlier, in different parts of town that work very well, of the same styles. I’d encourage them to go back and take another look. Make another pass at it. If they need to hire somebody that is really good at presentation or making a unified whole out of a bunch of design elements, then do that. I think it’s worth it. Thank you very much. Chair Lew: Thank you. The next speaker is [Warren Kursh] and then after that, we’ll have Margo and I can’t read the last name. Maybe Davis, possibly. Great. Welcome, and you have 5-minutes. [Mr. Warren Kursh:] Thank you, Members, of the Architectural Review Board. My name is [Warren Kursh]. I live just down the street, down Maybell, about two blocks away from the proposed development. I want to first thank Golden Gate Homes and Ted especially for the way they’ve worked with the neighborhood to come up with a design which really fits. Initially, it was 30, three-story homes City of Palo Alto Page 10 on substandard lots or under 6,000-square foot lots. The current design is a great compromise between the residents and the neighborhood and Golden Gate Homes. I think it – both sides win in this particular situation. There – you have a letter that I send to you earlier this week and there are only two elements that I think I would tweak a little bit in the design. As Jen and people have said, the homes on Maybell are the homes that experience most of the traffic. In the morning between 7:45 and 8:15, there is literally 1,000 kids on bicycles, cars, pedestrian, children walking, people out walking their dogs; that all converges on Maybell. It’s a real zoo, ok? In the afternoon, it’s not as bad. Just after schools let out. People from – students from Gun, students from (inaudible), people coming to pick up their children. On a rainy day, like yesterday or today, there is literally traffic backed up from El Comino all the way to the schools. I live on Donald Drive, just off of Maybell. One house off of Maybell and we have to park our car backward in so that we can drive safely out in the morning. I’ve very concerned about the curbs – the curb cuts. I also think that the amount of pavement is probably too much. If it could be softened with turf blocks or a combination of turf blocks and pavers, that would probably help. Lot #5, if the driveway could be moved onto Clemo – it would be inconvenient for the owners of that house to get out in the morning when there is traffic on Arastradero. They’d have to make a right turn and then go around the block if they want to go to El Comino. It would help with the safety on Maybell. The second point, which I brought up in my letter – probably it was my first point, was the contemporary look and feel. I don’t personally oppose contemporary. I like some contemporary designs. There are some contemporary designs I don’t like. I think probably lot #2 or lot #1 – I forget which one it is – with the bold white face is probably too bold contemporary and if it could be softened or if one of the two contemporaries could be changes a little bit, that would probably help – at least my feelings and perhaps others in the neighborhood who feel like me. I’m going to relinquish the rest of my time. I thank you for your time. Chair Lew: Thank you. We have Margo Davis, is next. Got it, thank you. Cheryl [phonetic][Lulinstien] will be next. [Ms. Cheryl Lulinstien:] I’ll make it brief. I really appreciate what Golden Gate Homes has done. I really – it’s been a long road and this is much better. We feel a lot more relaxed about the added amount of traffic on Maybell. That said, it’s still – I understand there is a compromise to be made by allowing three cars to park in each home; one in the garage, one next to it and one behind it. That way a third car of say a visitor doesn’t have to park in the neighborhood and in the street, which is also one of our concerns is that there are too many cars around altogether. Because of that, I’m just wondering if the house on lot #5, could have its driveway on Clemo? Same as the last speaker said and I also find that the lot #1, white face is too bold and just in your face. Lot #2 really does look like the side of the house. Other than that, I think that lot #4, the contemporary style looks really nice. Lot #3, it seems like it’s somewhere between contemporary and transitional. I’m ok with the street face on Maybell except for lot #1 and lot #2. Thanks very much. Chair Lew: Thank you. Margo Davis and the last speaker will be Bob Moss. Ms. Margo Davis: Good morning. Thank you, Members, of the Board and Ted and his team. Thank you very much for working with our neighborhood. I represent – my name is Margo Davis and I thank all of my neighbors for paying attention to Maybell and Clemo and the traffic issues. All the practical logistical issues associated with 16 new homes. I have a rather unique perspective. I live in the Tan Plaza and even though -- as you know, it’s not a condominium building. I’ve been there for 24-years, in an apartment on the 5th floor that overlooks the entire 2.4-acres that we’re about to develop. I have a bird's eye view of one end to the other so my perspective is a little bit different although, it’s the same as my neighbors because I walk in our neighborhood all the time but I live in a hovering helicopter view over this site. I have many concerns about – and I’m also a photographer, so I’m coming from a place of aesthetics here and not paying attention to all of the logistical things that this team is trying to balance. From the 5th floor, I’m concerned first of all, about all the contemporary – I love contemporary. Let me just say right now that I am much more into contemporary than I am into this heavy mission traditional style that looks like your building houses for the arctic. I mean we live in a semi-tropical place. We should have more lightness in these buildings. We should have more (inaudible). There’s much too – if you look at these – a lot of the homes, they are just heavy. They are heavy in color. They are heavy in stone. City of Palo Alto Page 11 They are heavy in all ways. I am a contemporary because lighter, more minimalist, will end up being a more aesthetic look but on the other hand, I’m looking down on the site rather than horizontally into it. Contemporary houses all put along the fence that faces Tan Plaza means that all of us, me and my neighbors, who’ve I have talked to at the Tan Plaza are looking on flat roofs. Imagine looking down on a bunch of concrete, flat roofs. I think we would rather see some Spanish from that point of view. The tiles are a lot more aesthetic – Spanish style or what you call – what do you call this kind of roof? I’m just lacking the term for it. A roof with a slope to it. A pitched roof. A pitched roof, thank you. It would probably more aesthetic so I would be against clustering all the contemporaries with flat roofs right along the fence of Tan Plaza. I also interested in maintaining the trees that are functional and that can hide some of this new development from our view. I think that more or less says what I have to say. I am interested going forward, very much in what the construction hours are going to be like and what the control over the mess – the Clemo mess – the whole mess. We’ve lived there for 25-years and this is a very difficult transition. Thank you very much. Thank you. I’ve already invited the team to come and get this helicopter view anytime you want to get an idea of what it looks like from up there, not from down here. Chair Lew: Thank you and our last speaker is Mr. Moss. Mr. Bob Moss: Thank you. I think that Golden Gate Homes is a much better proposal than the others we had on this site previously but there still are a few things that I think need some improving. First of all, if it’s possible, I’d like to see the driveway for the home on the corner, at Clemo rather than on Maybell. I don’t know – there are no dimensions on any of these maps so I don’t know if there is enough room to fit in but if there is, it would make it safer for people entering that property and accessing Maybell and would reduce the number of driveways from 5 to – from 3 to 2. You would have 2 driveways serving two of the homes – the other four homes. On the design, the contemporary style is not common in Barron Park. There is a few houses in that style. The one that really jumps out at you is on Amaranta about 3 doors down from Los Robles. It’s a big cube and it looks totally incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood so rather than having 7 out of 16 in that style. I would rather have more of them in the transitional or the traditional Spanish, which is more consistent with the neighborhood. The developments are supposed to be consistent with existing structures and buildings and this many of the new homes – new style, contemporary, is not. I’m particularly concerned about the 3 of them along Maybell. Now, if they want to retain that design, they could switch some of those buildings with the ones that are on the interior of the site, which is more traditional. Then they would have the – let's call them contemporary, on the inside where it would be more consistent and you’d have better consistency within the development and by putting the Spanish style along Maybell, you’d be more consistent with the existing neighborhood. The other possibility is to reduce the number of contemporaries and put in more traditional or even transitional designs. I think the design of the homes along Maybell needs to be modified and we want to keep the area consistent with the existing structures and existing homes. This particular design is not so I think it has to be modified. It’s not a big deal to switch buildings that are currently on the inside of this project which is more traditional, for the ones on Maybell, which are more modern. I’m not taking issue with the design basically, modern architecture. The Chairman of my Architecture Department when I was going to school was one of the creators of modern architecture. A fellow named Mies van der Rohe who I’m sure some of you have heard of and we had a lot of really interesting modern design buildings on campus and nearby. It’s not a gee, modern design is terrible. It’s fine in the right place and three of them along Maybell is not the right place. Chair Lew: Great. Thank you, Mr. Moss. We have no other public speakers. Oh, we do have one last speaker. You can come to the microphone and just state your name and then also, you can fill in a card after you speak. Mr. Winston Wong: My name is Winston Wong. I own a house on Baker, which is a few blocks away from the development. I generally like the development. It’s a great opportunity to enhance the neighborhood. 16 homes are a great development. I do have a few concerns about the homes on Maybell. As some of the previous other people mentioned, there’s a lot of traffic from the schools and in the weather, it gets even worse. I’m assuming that there will be – the homes on Maybell will have a basement and if they do, City of Palo Alto Page 12 I’m concerned about the water that’s maybe pumped out on the street and the hazard it may pose to some of the bicycles. Mitigating the dust as well as digging this huge holes for the basements too. I’m not sure if it depends on the time of the year when they excavate for the basements but I’m more concerned about the traffic going in and out along Maybell. Mostly because there are kids and I wish – the kids have a lot of good judgment on bicycles and stuff like that but they are just kids, so we have to compensate for that. I kind of reiterate the concerns with some of the other neighbors too about the contemporary designs on Maybell too. I have a concern about blending in with the neighborhood too. I’m not sure if it’s appropriate but in the literature, does it say what they are going to market the homes for in terms of not changing the character of the neighborhood or who moves in and stuff like that? I’m not sure if that’s addressed in here what they are planning to market the homes for? What they sell for is entirely different but that’s all I had. Chair Lew: Great. Mr. Wong: Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you. I’m going to close the public portion of the meeting – of this item and for the applicant, you do have a 10-minute rebuttal period if you want. Male (Applicant Team): Can we get a couple minutes to confer before we speak? Chair Lew: Yeah, confer and I think we have some questions here so we’ll – for Staff. We can get back to you in a couple minutes. Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I had two questions. What is the present on street parking regulations on Clemo? Is it just on street parking on both sides permitted? Chair Lew: No. Mr. Ah Sing: Yes, that – sorry yes there is a public park there and there’s no restriction… Board Member Furth: On either side of the street. Mr. Ah Sing: …currently. Right. Board Member Furth: Then it’s just blocked off with the emergency access and pedestrian and bicycle access around the corner. Mr. Ah Sing: Yes, the Clemo (inaudible) Board Member Furth: I had some difficulty reading the tree maps and landscape designs. Right now, the predominate natural feature there, leaving aside the aging orchard, is quite impressive oak trees along both frontages. Could you tell me – when I look at those – let’s start with Clemo. When I look at the trees along Clemo, will they all be saved? What’s the proposal? Chair Lew: Some of the trees – I think two of the trees are being removed to Maybell. Board Member Furth: Two would be removed. What size? Chair Lew: Moved. Mr. Ah Sing: They would be moved, relocated. Board Member Furth: Removed from my point of view. I’m thinking about the whole frontage. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Ms. Jodie Gerhardt: We do have sheets TM3.1. Board Member Furth: Yeah, I’ve seen it. Ms. Gerhardt: Certainly, the concept was to save the trees along Clemo and along the interior of the property line with the Tan Plaza as much as possible. You’ll see here that some trees are being relocated. Board Member Furth: I’m asking – I’m really trying to figure out – only one tree of the absolute corner would be removed and then one tree over on the right at lot #16, is, that, right? All the remaining trees would stay? Ms. Gerhardt: There are a – four trees being relocated. Board Member Furth: But not from the area I’m concerned with. There’s an interior tree setback, you’re right, on lot #6. Ms. Gerhardt: You’re asking about the – along Maybell? Mr. Ah Sung: No, it was Clemo… Board Member Furth: No, I’m looking at Clemo. Mr. Ah Sung: … I think that was a design consideration. You can tell by the driveways that they are not really symmetrical because they are trying to avoid the trees. They are being considerate to that. I think a lot of the questions raised today was regarding lot #5 whether they can take access off of Clemo. I think there is a possibility to look into that. I don’t think there is a tree that would (inaudible). Board Member Furth: I didn’t have a good sense when I was looking at those trees, is to how many would have to be removed and your answer is very few on the Clemo frontage, right? Mr. Ah Sing: Yes. Board Member Furth: Then I know for example, in my neighborhood, downtown North, we have developments in which multiple families – multiple single family dwelling developments like this one – what we use to call subdivisions – that have conventions in place to ensure the protections of oak trees after the individual lots are sold. Would you be thinking of something like that here? Mr. Ah Sing: We haven’t gotten those types of documents for review but if it’s something that the Board wants us to include, we can include that provision. Board Member Furth: One of our findings is preserving important natural features and it seems to me this is the important natural feature on this site. Thank you. Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: I have a quick question for Staff. The lot coverage calculations, should those take into account light walls? I don’t need an immediate answer but maybe you can look into that. Also, whether or not those light walls should be counted as an impervious area on the site. Ms. Gerhardt: There certainly impervious area although the main criteria we have for the impervious area is the front setback. Chair Lew: Any other questions? City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Baltay: Yes, I have a couple of questions and a discloser I suppose. I had several email correspondences with the Staff regarding two issues. One was a question about the ground water level and I was told that the ground level water is at least 20-feet below the surface and would preclude the need for any surface pumping – dewatering of the site, which I think is an important issue in the town right now. I’d like Staff to confirm that again for the record. Mr. Ah Sing: Right, so as part of the Environmental Document, there was a Geotechnical Study that’s an appendix and was reviewed to make those conclusions that there wouldn’t be any physical significant impact. In 2015, when the study was conducted, the ground water level was at 39 ½-feet and it also mentioned in this study that historically, the highest level is about 20-feet. Board Member Baltay: From my experience, that mean that you don’t need to do dewatering. Mr. Ah Sing: The basements are 10-feet – you have to put the footings so it’s not going to impact that level. Board Member Baltay: The second question I had to Staff had to do with rather arcane detail in the zoning code regarding the extent of the basement when it’s not exactly following the footprint of the main floor above it. I have experienced in Palo Alto a fairly strict interpretation of that detail on the zoning code and it seems to me these houses make a fairly liberal use of extending under fairly large porches, adding a lot of square footage to the house. The question is more that do we have a clear guideline for all applicants in the town as to how that code item is dealt with? Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you for the question. There has been a lot of discussion about basements. There’s been even more discussion about what is the definition of the footprint. We – and no one seems to quite agree what the definition of the footprint is and, so – and that’s part of where the basements can be. Our conclusion that we’ve come to is that certainly, you’re going to have a basement under the first-floor house but there’s also been a long-standing Staff policy that you can have basement square footage under covered porches. We have tried to limit so that it doesn’t get too crazy. We’ve limited that in two instances. It has to be under a covered porch. It has to be an entry porch. It usually ends up being a front door or back door situation and you’re just allowed to complete the square and not have to follow the ins and outs that your first floor may have. Board Member Baltay: I would request that – I’m practicing architect in town and designed several dozen houses a year here. It would be great if you could put that out so that everybody sees that policy. It’s not clear and I’ve experienced it to be unenforced – enforced unevenly. That said, I don’t think there is any issue as far the finding for architectural review. The third question I have is regarding when a tentative map was approved, was there any discussion regarding additional parking on the new street created off of Clemo for visitor/guest parking as far as a few on-street service delivery parking spots? Was that brought up at all during the tentative review process? Mr. Ah Sing: There was a lot of discussion about the street. It does meet the private street regulation and requirements and also, the houses do have driveways that would accommodate the guest parking. In all, the street is consistent with the subdivision ordinance and the design is also consistent. Board Member Baltay: Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: I have – Robert, any questions? I have a couple questions for Staff. In the public speakers, Mr. Warren [Kursh] had said that he had sent a letter earlier this week and I didn’t receive it. Did the other Staff members get it? So, the Board hasn’t seen it. Normally, the – just one second – normally, when public sends an email to the ARB, it goes to Staff first and Staff forwards it. I do understand we had a medical issue with one of the Staff people so maybe that’s why we didn’t get it. We haven’t reviewed any public letters that came in on this project. It happened before – the first time the Maybell project came through, that we didn’t get a lot of the emails so I want to make sure the Board gets that at City of Palo Alto Page 15 the next hearing. We’ve closed the public testimony but if you had a quick clarification, I think that’s ok, but you do need to come to the microphone. [Ms. Fryling:] I was just going to mention that I also sent a letter and I know about 20-25 other people sent in letters. It’s pretty much consistent with that you heard from the Maybell area. You may not have seen those letters but they are to the ARB; the email alias. Just so you know. Chair Lew: Thank you very much. We have not seen any of them is my understanding. Then, I did want to follow up on… Mr. Moss: I also sent a letter yesterday morning and I got a response saying, it’s been received. I don’t know. Chair Lew: Yes, it’s been received by Staff but it hasn’t been forward to us. Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, as you stated, we do have medical issues but – with one of our Staff members but we will come back through that email and make sure we’ve gotten everything. Chair Lew: We’re not making any decision today. I think we are going to continue the hearing so we will factor in all those letters at the next time. Then, Ms. Margo Davis had mentioned the construction hours. I think -- and also, Mr. Wong had asked about some of the construction issues with dust and trucks. I know that that’s standard – we typically put those in under conditions of approval but I wonder if Staff could explain the process for that and how the neighborhood – normally, that’s done after ARB, before construction but there isn’t normally a public meeting about that but I was wondering if there is a way for them to be informed about that construction logistic plan. Ms. Gerhardt: As you said, the construction logistic plan is normally a Public Works engineering process. We do put conditions of approval in the approval letters to ensure that that happens. It’s not normally a public process but… Mr. Jonathan Lait: Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director with the Planning Department. The logistic plan is an administered task. It’s something that we apply to all projects. There is no public review process of that logistic plan however, it is a public record and any member of the public could come forward and make a request of such document when it was available. Chair Lew: Thank you very much. I think that’s all the questions that I have. We’ll go back to the applicant and you do have a 10-minute rebuttal period. Board Member Baltay: Alex, one last quick motion. On the 3-D (inaudible) drawing, I’m showing the intersection of Maybell and Clemo not having the traffic bollards that are there right now. Are they intended to be removed? Ms. Gerhardt: Absolutely not. The bollards on Clemo are to remain and we will make sure that gets back in the plan set. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Mr. O’Hanlon: Thanks. Thank you. We’re going to bifurcate our responses but there was something I wanted to say to Staff and to the Board and to all the folks in the neighborhood who came out with comments regarding lot #5 driveway being switched to Clemo. We spent a long time working with the folks on Arastradero about that working. Guys, to even suggest that would be 10 giant steps backward in our process. That was a compromise that Golden Gate Homes made, that the neighborhood Maybell side made and the neighborhood of Arastradero side all came together and pushes for that 16-unit subdivision. That’s kind of why I am here to make sure we respond to things that aren’t necessarily architectural related. It’s – PCT was responsive to the plan that we made with that lot #5 driveway as City of Palo Alto Page 16 configured. Now, I am going to hand it over to Eugene, who is going to go through some of the architectural comments we heard both from Staff and from some of the neighbors. Mr. Eugene Sakai: I know that you on the ARB – oops, breaking you IT here, sorry about that. I know that you on the ARB and especially the neighbors have a long history on this project. We as the architect are relatively new to the project and really just came on board for the 16-unit concept. I really appreciate hearing the comments from the neighbors Jennifer, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Kursh, Cheryl, Ms. Davis, Mr. Moss and Mr. Wong because we haven’t really had the benefit of meeting you all and understanding, as you do, the neighborhood and the context and your feelings and thoughts about how your neighborhood wants to feel to you. For me to hear that today is very informative and very helpful. With that in mind, from all of those neighbors, I heard a lot of concerns about the feel and the atmosphere that we’re creating with the houses along Maybell, specifically. I thought it might be beneficial for me to just go one by one along those – along Maybell, starting from lot #1 on the upper left corner and just go all the way down to lot #5 and just very briefly touch on some of the architectural things that we might be able to do to accommodate some of the concerns we’ve heard. As I mentioned, we’re a firm that is very receptive to concerns from all parties especially, neighbors. We want to be a good neighbor with our project as does out client. Starting with lot #1 at the upper corner there, that is what we, in our mind, view as a pretty firmly contemporary project. We heard some concerns about the white frames being too bold and sometimes you take a fresh look at the project after having worked on it and setting it aside for a few months and now that I look at that, I can see where the neighbors are coming from. If you go down to lot #4, that has a very similar feel with some horizontal and vertical framing going on but that frame is done in sort of a warm grey or a charcoal grey and in talking to Ted, he and I both concur that we could – he would be open as would we to mitigate the boldness of those white forms on lot #1 by toning down the color to something more akin to what you see on lot #4. That was the concerns we heard on that particular parcel. On lot #2 there were some concerns from various parties about the nature of the fenestration on this building and that was something that we did intentionally. We wanted a -- because of the intersection – the ‘T’ intersection that is created by Abel Avenue as it dies into Maybell, that happens really right at lot #2 and, so for that reason we actually deliberately chose a traditionally style home that we felt would look good without a ponderous of glass on the elevation and then even push that a little bit further by looking to minimize the amount of windows and the size of those windows on that particular frontage because of the issue of headlights coming into that particular front elevation from cars on Abel. Now, I am not fully aware of the amount of traffic on Abel or how many instances in which this headlight to window impact would occur. I know having done a number of homes in situations like this, this is always something that we try to do when faced with a ‘T’ intersection. That lack of fenestration and that particular style home on that lot was a very deliberate choice. The parcel in the middle, lot #3, I think is in our mind a transitionally styled home. Again, looking at it with fresh eyes, I see that – I can fully understand by the neighbors feel that that parcel or that particular design is highly contemporary. In our mind, we were trying to make that the hinge of this entire frontage and sort of be the balance between two contemporaries and two traditional homes and have that be transitional but I see know that it does skew a bit more to the contemporary. Talking to Ted, we are willing and open to trying to tone that down. There is a sloped roof on this house already and I think that if perhaps, we change the material on that roof to something a little bit more neighbor compatible such as shingles – maybe asphalt comp. shingles and maybe also, eliminated the bold white horizontal band that people seem to find objectionable at the first-floor porch level. Perhaps making that another sloped roof with shingles on it. I think that would put this transitional home firmly in the direction of more traditional, more of a two-story ranch feel. I didn’t hear a lot of concerns about the specific design of lot #4, which is the next one down, one away from the corner. I did hear concerns about the skewing of 3 of the 5 homes being contemporary and I feel that perhaps if we mitigated that by switching lot #3 to more of a traditional, that that would balance out that concern and we could leave lot #4 as it is. As far as lot #5 goes, we intentionally wanted the corner property to be a traditional home. That was the direction from the client. That’s actually what we would have recommended also and so we’re very happy with how that craftsman home sits there on the corner. Ted has already talked about the issue with garage and some of the constraints. We feel that lot #5 shares a driveway with lot #4 and therefore, in terms of the whole project, takes away one curb cut. There are a couple of oak trees on Clemo that would have to be removed if we flipped that garage around the corner so to speak and you would have one more driveway City of Palo Alto Page 17 net on the overall project. That’s just my own little tour down Maybell for the benefit for you all to hear our thing and our points of flexibility and we certainly appreciate hearing from the neighbors and the (inaudible) Board today. Chair Lew: Great. Thank you. Mr. Sakai: I’m sorry. One last comment. Ms. Davis mentioned her concerns about looking down on flat roofs and it was never our intent to have those just be flat membrane roofs. We will clad those with decorative gravel to minimize the reflection off of those roofs and improve the appearance as seen from above. Chair Lew: Great. Thank you. We can now move to Board Member comments. Kyu, would you like to start us off, please? Vice Chair Kim: Thank you for your presentation. You said that you’re fairly new to this, as am I, even though the board has heard previous Maybell projects. I was not on the Board at the time. I think it’s a very daunting task and it’s a very challenging site and project that you’ve bene tasked with. I almost want to split my comments into two portions. Maybe we can start from a bigger site planning perspective and then go to more architectural comments. From a site planning perspective, I’m actually very pleased with what you’ve presented to us and I think it’s a good layout and how you’ve tried to arrange the buildings such that you’re minimizing curb cuts, you’re having buildings that balance out the traditional and the contemporary. I do have a couple comments. I think in the previous Maybell proposals there was an intent to provide a path – a pedestrian path to the park. That looks like it is no longer there. I’m fine with that, I’m just making that as a comment. In addition to that, it appears that there’s only a sidewalk on one portion of the new private street that’s being presented. I think while the layout of the site and the properties and the homes are nice. It was a little bit hard for us to read the lot designations on some of the site plans so I would encourage you to maybe clear that up a little bit in the future. I think also in the future it would be nice to see not only the cars inside the garages but if we could see the cars parked in the driveways, that would be helpful. From an architectural standpoint, it was a lot to have to digest in the week that we’ve had these packets. I think your approach is admirable. The fact that you’re trying to present this balance. I really appreciated your presentation and explain to us that you’re trying to be more with the times but that you’re being understanding of the public's concerns. I like the way that you’ve gone down Maybell in your rebuttal and kind of explained each home and its architectural elements. My architectural comments are a little bit all over the place but they mostly have to do with the way that the drawing has been presented. The roof plans on some of these colored renderings were very difficult to read. They are very dark and it’s hard for me to see where those roof lines start and end. I do realize that you have somewhat of a unit roof plan but it would be nice to see the roof plan for each of the renditions of the units. Where we have maybe the same floor plan for a contemporary and a traditional – if we can see each of those roof plans that would be quite helpful. The floor plans also, I think would benefit from showing perhaps a dotted line of the outline of the other floors. For instance, on the basement floor plan, if you could show an outline of exactly where that first floor is and vice versa if we could see the basement outline on the first-floor plan. I forgot to mention one other comment for the site plan. I think it would be good to see a second-floor site plan. I do have a little bit of concern for privacy between some of the units. I think they would benefit from looking at second-floor site plan to see where the window is actually facing and the relationships between the individual homes. I also think this is kind of an interesting take because I know if each of these homes was presented separately, you would go through the individual review process, which is a very detailed process and looking at a lot of these architectural elements. While I know, you have these area calculations, if we could see more broken down are calculations in the traditional box with the ‘X’ through it and seeing some more dimensions, I would appreciate that in the future. I also want to through out there that it looks like some of the homes have some taller walls that may actually have to be included in the site coverage. I don’t know what planning’s interpretation of that would be but that’s just something to look at. Architecturally on some of these unit plans, it looks like you have very differing plate heights. I know a lot of that is intentional but I’m just thinking if there was a way to maybe keep the whole second level at one finished floor plate. Would that help clean up some of the roof lines? It’s just a question I had as I was studying City of Palo Alto Page 18 your plans. I’m sure a lot of the other comments will be covered but in closing, I just wanted to also thank the public for coming out and giving their comments. I was a little bit concerned that we didn’t see more public testimony in our packets but I’m glad that you’ve come out and I also commend the applicant for working with the community and I’m confident we can come to a consensus. I very much look forward to the project being built. Thank you. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Well, the conversion from agriculture to housing is never easy. I think there’s been ample evidence of there here. I’ve enjoyed that helicopter view of the site from the social space on the top floor of Tan Plaza. I actually think Tan Plaza is one of the buildings that give definition and character to the neighborhood when I have been looking at it. The neighborhood – we're supposed to be thinking about context and this is a really complicated context. There is a tremendous number of public buildings, there’s a public park, there’s a high-rise apartment building of the kind we know longer see. There’s a heavily burdened street at Maybell which has lots of pedestrian and bicycle and car traffic. You have two-story affordable – two-story apartment nearby and as I drive by or walk by, not knowing the neighborhood over time, it seems – two things. It seems to be rapidly transitioning. There seems to be a lot of houses built as the earlier houses were torn down. The first conversion to agriculture to housing there. Those houses seem to be fairly exuberant. Expressions of individual preferences which leads to some jawing (inaudible). When we think about what is the context, we’re trying to be sensitive to and supportive of and make better – I’m confused. I’m perplexed at times. It does seem to me that the existing character of the site, which is going to change, is heavily wooded and I think it should be possible to maintain that along the street frontage and if it is, I think that would be important. I’ve also been struck in looking at these elevations at how much of view from Maybell includes houses that are located on the interior street. If that’s the case, then I guess I would be looking for more landscaping that would make that view a bit greener. For Staff, are the driveways defined by subdivision map? Does is show curb cuts? Mr. Ah Sing: I mean – so the (inaudible)…(crosstalk) Board Member Furth: It doesn’t, right? Mr. Ah Sing: I’m sorry. Board Member Furth: I’m sorry. It does not show curb cuts, right? The subdivision map. Mr. Ah Sing: Right. Board Member Furth: That’s a matter to be determined? Mr. Ah Sing: Right. Board Member Furth: That’s part of our responsibility in thinking about circulation. I spent a lot of time walking small children along blocks with a lot of driveways. I appreciate the advantages of fewer but I don’t think the difference between one or two or three – one maybe but the difference here is enough to – by itself justify consolidating driveways. I’m more concerned about the ratio between green space – green frontage and paved frontage. I’ve very concerned about how functional these driveways are. I realize when we think about existing trees, that may make things even more complicated but at the moment, some of these driveways do not look practical to me. I’m not willing to sacrifice that kind of safety to a fewer – one or two fewer driveways. I’m also concerned about on-street parking. I’m sympathetic to the notions that these sites really should have a place for delivery trucks, visitors, domestic workers etc. to park off the street because these are heavily used, congested streets. I’m not sure what the solution is but I think that’s a thing worth going for. I share Commissioner Kim’s – Board Member Kim’s concern about second story privacy between units. I think that’s something we really need to think about when looking at two-story – a multiple single family developments. It was very helpful to City of Palo Alto Page 19 hear the neighbor’s comments. There were, as always, well informed and interesting but even more well informed and interesting that usual. I’m not as concerned and this may partly be because I don’t see – and I will go look again – the coherence and cohesiveness of the existing development in the immediate vicinity. I’m less concerned about whether something is called modern or Spanish or transitional or contemporary. I’m a lot – quite concerned about how it’s carried out. I live in a neighborhood that dates back to the 1890s. We have houses dating from that era and we have houses dating from 2016 and in my experience, low-key contemporary, which is typically seems to have a lot of wood siding and subtle windows and no particular heavy elements. It still can have dramatic and beautiful proportions – goes quite well with our 1920s and 30s and 40s houses and even my fake 1990s stucco. Which is part of a planned unit development? I’m less concerned about the ratio of modern to other styles but I’m quite concerned about the samples that we have. They do not, to me, appear to meet our standards for high- quality architecture. I think that too frequently, they have too much of the (inaudible). They have too much of design elements that seem to have been stuck on rather than to have been generated outward from the internal design of the houses and that bothers me a lot. It’s particularly striking to me on the red tile roof house in the internal street. I just can’t figure that out. One other concern I have that’s really a site design concern is I’m concerned about having that private street, with that number of houses on it, with no on-street parking. I think you need to find a place somewhere – it’s going to require an easement on a lot but you need to find a place where there can become parking. We can’t have all that space and somebody driving in to deliver something, to drop something off, to visit and there is no off-street parking. That concerns me. Those are my thoughts at the moment. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Let me start with the layout first. I appreciate the fact that you’ve come down from 30 to 16 and I think the – I like the layout. Everything else – the biggest problem or the thing I thought was rather interesting, you have 8 units -- separate floor plan type units yet, you’ve got them distributed as – you’ve got 5 of one kind, 3 of another kind, and then 4 that are one of a kind. I’d rather see 2 of each kind over 8 units. The thing with this is, is that it’s always difficult especially, with this size and – is that you’re trying to create infill or my thought is that in 15-years or 10-years, the average person driving by or walking by doesn’t really think oh, this was developed and put in mid-2- teens. The problem you end up – the way – especially when I look at the floor plans or I should say the site plan. It’s reminiscent of a track situation or a subdivision in the fact that it almost – numerous of these cases you’ve got a book ending like the two residents that come off Clemo Avenue onto the driveway; they’re mirror images of each other. The ones back on lots #9 and #14, same thing. Then you’ve got 4 exactly the same ones in the back that are just flipped or two bookended series and then again along the other one. What I’d rather see is a more random approach as to the units going next to each other. I think that would work better and it makes it look more – the rest of the neighborhood was built pretty much one unit at a time or two units at a time so they look totally different from their neighbors. I think you’ve done a good job -- like I said, I have to give you a lot of credit for coming up with 8 units and 7 or 8 varieties as far as that. I think it’s a matter of just applying some of the styles to the different floor plans and that sort of thing. Let's see, I agree with some of the neighbors – again, with the – I can understand your concept of the driveways but when you’re at ground level and you’re walking by, it’s a large area of hardscape like that, that is tough to make it look green and friendly. I think you’re probably better off splitting those up somewhat or even putting maybe – I don’t know, tree pockets or something in some of those hardscape areas to get some greenery in there. Let's see, as to the architecture elevations, I like the mix. It’s come up with a lot of people as you said – unit – what is it – 1 on lot #1 is probably a little bold for the average person. If nothing else, that could be painted to tone it down initially. I appreciate the – you’re concept or you’re thought about the lot #2 type 4 as far as the lighting. I mean, I know that can be annoying. The problem with it is that just the way it’s done, you get about 8 or 10 very small little windows and that’s what makes it look – I think it probably why people think it’s not the most desirable looking elevation. I agree with you that you make need to do something where you don’t get the direct 8 by 10 window facing the street but I think that needs some variation. As far as the overall design, like I said I like the mix. Some I like better than others. I’ve always had a problem with units such as lot #3 unit 1 or lot #7 type 8. I don’t like the big banding in the middle of the house. It has a tendency to split the second floor from the first floor and gives the second floor no City of Palo Alto Page 20 relationship to the ground. I think those two need to work better together rather than the one floating on top of the other one. Roof pitches, I’ve always been – I’m just not a big fan of having two or three different roof pitches on one house. Unless it’s for some reason that you can’t make it fit any other way or if it’s some sort of a shed dormer; that’s one thing but on some of these where it doesn’t – I don’t see any reason why you can’t make the pitches of the first floor and the second floor the same. I don’t see any window in the way or anything of that sort. I think that’s probably it for right now. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you to members of the public for coming out. Three sets of comments. The first one has to do with the overall presentation in itself. I appreciate you putting in so many 3-D views and the color drawings are helpful. However, I’d like to see a floor plan for each house with the rest of the house drawings. Unfortunately, I find that the houses actually do have different plans. Each one seems to have a different type of balcony and it’s really impossible to figure out what the privacy impacts are without those floor plans. It’s also just really difficult for us to review these. Trying to figure out these things. You guys have been thinking about it for a while but we haven’t. If you could find a way to get one or two pages for each house and just really show up the guts of it. Including the floor plans please, for each house. Secondly, if you could find a way to get us a better landscaping and tree plan. I find it really unclear which trees are staying and which trees are going. Your tree relocation plan doesn’t show the existing trees. It’s really tough to put it together. Again, if you put yourself in our position, we haven’t been doing this for a year. What’s going on? Make it easy so that we can make it easy for you. Right now, it’s not. It would really be nice to see one or two overall images looking down on Maybell. What would think look like in context? It’s something we asked most applicants to do. With the computer systems, we have now, it’s not that big of a deal to give us a rendering looking down Maybell. Looking in Clemo. Show us these houses in context with the neighborhood. I think you’d find that it actually supports your project but it would be really nice to see that. We’re all guessing now what – we’re not guessing, we’re professionals looking at this and with a bunch of head scratching we can sort of figure it out. We really not just want to figure it out but really feel good about it. Take the effort to show us a couple of big images, money shots, sort of like this aerial one you’ve done but show it to us from the point of view of the person walking down the street as well. Regarding the site planning. I think we are moving with what the tentative map has been approved and there is no more discussion about that. My issue has to do with the parking and the arrangement of driveways. I see a few things that are bothersome to me. The interior street has no off-street parking for deliveries, visitors, guests, somebody coming along and every subdivision I’ve worked on, we’ve always tried hard to get a couple of spots somebody could just pull over. It does – in this case because the map has already been – the tentative map has already been set, you have to do something on private land with easements but it seems to me that you have 8 houses on that street and at least – if you had 4 spaces where somebody could just pull to the side of the curb or the road, get out and do what they are doing. Be it a housekeeper cleaning for a day, be a holiday party, be a FedEx or UPS truck. Right now, it’s just going to be a bottleneck. It’s just going to – and the curbs will all be red painted with no parking signs so it just doesn’t make for a very good situation. I just think we need to do something for that for the interior street. The situation with the shared driveways I find very problematic. If I look carefully at both conditions where the driveways are shared, if you put some cars in there as Kyu asked you, you would see that it’s really tough to back out. To get out of that house when your neighbors are parking in a couple of those situations. What it means is you’re trying to get out bringing your kid to school and you’re late already and you’re trying to back around that neighbor who is parked their car inconsiderately or their RV and you’re trying to do that while you curve and cross the sideway and there’s people going up and down. You’re creating a very difficult situation. I put it to you and to the neighbors, I think this coming from the community, you’re better off with 10-foot wide individual driveways for each house coming off the street. That’s the way Palo Alto has been developed. I think you’d find it makes your houses more marketable. I think you’ll find it makes less paved area if you stick with the traditional narrow driveway up to the house and you focus on your remaining pavement just meeting that second parking space that is required and it will work better. What you have now, I think, in the two situations on Maybell, I find it doesn’t work. It’s just too tight for the parking to actually navigate in and out and it’s compounded with the kids on the street makes for a very dangerous situation. It’s always hard to back City of Palo Alto Page 21 up and turn at the same time. Regarding the two detached garages on the interior. I can see what Staff is saying about the garages being located in the front yard of somebody’s house. However, I find that that’s a – to me at least, a secondary concern to just allowing them to functional driveways that work and also, allowing them to have back yards. I think that a backyard is actually an important thing for a house and we handicap the developers not letting them have the option to work that type of arrangement themselves. They choose to have a detach garage if they want to do it with some shielding next to the neighbor’s other property, I think that’s ok. Then lot #6 has a driveway that I find doesn’t work because you have a large oak tree you are trying to save right in front garage. Which I’ll come to another point in a second but it just doesn’t work the way it is. You can’t – again, back out, do that curve like that. I think – you guys aren’t going to like this but you really do a unique design for each lot. You’re there but now take designs you have and tweak them and work with them. We’ve never managed -- Palo Alto to do a one-off, cookie cutter kind of thing. You’re already changing the style of the house so much. It’s not actually that much more work. On lot #6 for example, clearly, you’re trying to fix a floor plan where you have a tree. If you were designing it as a one-off house, you’d start with that tree and put the driveway where you can fit it and then work. It just seems to me that we’re looking for a high level of design. High level design means each house is really thoughtfully designed to fit its criteria. I’m afraid I think you should really go through each house once more and tweak it, change it, so that it fits. I also think you need individual designs because you have individual styles of houses. At least for me, when I design a modern house versus a traditional versus a Mediterranean, those styles are not just applied things. They are not just different kind of roof material. There’s a difference in the way the plans layout, the style of the house at a deeper level and I find it just disturbing to think that you could just take the same plan and make such a radical change on how it looks without actually looking at the floor plan itself. If you want to do modern homes and want to follow the form follows function thing. Then the function is the floor plan and you’re trying to do – you’re treating modern homes as a style and it’s not. Lastly, house number 5 on the street, I’ll give you one more example of why I think you need individual designs. House number 6 has a tall, two-story element facing Maybell, which isn’t really reflective in the floor plan and it’s because it’s a flat element; just sort of a change in materials really. When I look at it in detail and I think if we had a 3-D, you would notice that it ought to be projecting. It’s a projecting element; it should stick out a couple of feet so the eaves tie together and it’s not. It just architects trying to cut and paste with a computer. It doesn’t work. It’s awkward looking and it’s because you’re not designing the house uniquely. If you go back now and tweak that and give it the nook it needs, the extra window, it would be a little better. On the design of the houses I find that we are tasked to enforce the individual review guidelines and the zoning code which makes clear statements that we should not be specifying what style of house and I find myself very uncomfortable with us saying make more – fewer more modern houses or traditional style houses on the street. I think that’s something Palo Alto has tried very hard over the years not to regulate. I’m sympathetic to the neighbors being concerned about not liking the look of a contemporary house however, that’s one of things that made Palo Alto what it is. Is that we let people do that. We’re not Belmont. We don’t restrict those things and I’m afraid I feel every uncomfortable trying to judge it based on its architectural style. That said, I do feel that these houses have to be compatible with each other in the neighborhood and that’s why I’d like to see some of these street view renderings where you really can see the point that where made about – for example, toning down the color of the trim on one contemporary house would go a long way towards making it fit better with the other houses and that kind of stuff will come out of these additional views and studies. I do support focusing on getting them to be more compatible. What I see on these houses however, is just too much and a number of scale and size things as well as the details. They’re all – as far as I can tell, 10-foot first stories and 9-foot second story plate height. Most of the time in Palo Alto that’s tough to accomplish. We have daylight planes. We have compatibility issues. You’re pushing it here. You’re trying to do it because you have 16 houses together. When you want to make a house that is that big at that broad shouldered, it’s incumbent upon you to also work hard to downplay the outside to make it feel more modest almost and you’re doing the opposite. Each house has – I counted it – 4 or 5 different primary materials. 3 different kinds of siding a lot of the cases, a dominant kind of roof, heavy trim band; that’s too much. More than more houses have. Certainly, more than the neighborhood you’re fitting into. It's a relatively modest neighborhood. Barron Park is not a flashy expensive part of Palo Alto and these houses are trying to be that fancy and it would really be helpful to just downplay. Cut back on material from each house. You’ll find it looks better. It’s easier to build. It fits better. Same thing goes with a lot of City of Palo Alto Page 22 the detailing you have. Some of your Mediterranean style houses seem to have everything in the book added. A little tile detail, it’s the fancy windows, the chimney cap detail, it just goes on and on and on. Again, I wonder in the architect are (inaudible) a little bit. There’s a real virtue when knowing when to stop and I think you stopped to late on a lot of these houses. I spoke about the height – the plates of the houses and I feel very strongly about that. I usually design 9-foot first floor, 8-foot second floor plates. I find that just fits in much better with the neighborhood. If you want to make it an extra 2-feet taller, you have to downplay the size of it from outside; these will look to big otherwise. I find that you have on most houses a very large covered porch on the main floor in the back. Seems to be 15’ x 25’, perhaps bigger than that. I find that very unusual. Very few of our clients in Palo Alto ever ask for that and I’m curious as to what it’s there for and uncomfortable with it to be honest. It just creates large covered areas. It blocks a lot of light coming into the houses and honestly and frankly, what it does it is creates a place that gets closed in later. Just further increasing the bulk of these houses and it just seems very strange. Each house has glued onto the back of it – which not really incorporated into the architecture – a very large covered patio. Which will make the inside room extremely dark. It really makes it tougher to compose the elevations so I’m just not in favor of that. I had gone through each one of these and made numerous notes on the evaluations. I think however, it’s not appropriate to drive through all of them now given the more general comments. I can say to you for example, when you are going to use an arched window, it should always be either a semi-circle per arch or a broken arch. Not both on the same house. When you are going to use a curved barrel vault type roof – a contemporary house, don’t give us 4 different radiuses on it. That’s just lazy architecture. That’s not changing your floor plan to work with the style – what I was talking about. In the end, you’ll be embarrassed to sell it that way. You put it on the market and it won't look good, it will look odd. It’s just a matter of pushing the architects a little bit more to refine it. Barrel vault is beautiful, that is fine, but do it cleanly. Do it beautifully. Do it with the same radius on the second floor – in the upper floor so that it really works. The last item that I feel very strongly – I’ve pushed my other Board Members on that we have to follow is that the individual review guidelines have fairly strict privacy controls about what a second-floor balcony can see into its neighboring property. What the windows are seeing oriented that way and you have a lot of second floor balconies here and you have precious little documentation of how they work or where they’re – the impact on each other. I’d like to say to you, please present to us what you’re really thinking and please understand that, at least I feel, that we are tasked to be consistent with the standards that the City upholds on every other house in town. General speaking, a second-floor balcony that can look into somebodies back yard is just not permitted. It doesn’t get through the IR process and I don’t think the Architectural Review Board should treat it any differently. I’m 1 of 5 but it’s something that I caution my fellow Board Members on. We need to be consistent about. The applicants need to be clear what they are proposing to begin with. Again, please, if you could improve the package of presentation just a little bit like I mentioned. Please give serious thought to some of the parking issues and then, less is more as Mies van der Rohe put it for us. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you. I have a question for Staff to follow up on that – I was reading the – I was trying to understand the IR guidelines as they apply to this particular project. The R2 zoning has restrictions on the extent of the IR guidelines and I was wondering if maybe the Staff could just liberate on that? Ms. Gerhardt: When we’re looking at just a single house – Palo Alto doesn’t do these types of subdivisions very often but when looking at a single house, we’re paying attention to the edges that have single family homes. What you’re saying in the R2 or the RM15, sometimes those properties will have to abide by the IR guidelines when adjacent to a single-family home. Chair Lew: The IR guidelines do not apply to this project as I understand it because it’s surrounded – it’s not adjacent to… Mr. Ah Sing: The… Chair Lew: …single family or – single or duplex – or two-family duplex. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Ms. Gerhardt: The edges of this property are higher density but I think the Board is bringing in that the houses themselves – out of the 16 houses are adjacent to another house and, so that’s where the IR guidelines would come in. Chair Lew: They do apply internally? Ok. Thank you. I have a question for the applicant. Do you have the Landscape Architect here today? Then, maybe next – possibly next time. I have a – we have a new finding that just started this year which is to use native plants to the greatest extent possible to create habitat and the plant list is predominately Asian and Australian plants. They’re drought tolerant but they’re not native. I think with regard to that findings, I think preserving – retaining onsite the oak trees is a huge positive on that side but with a lot of the front yard garden – the front yard landscaping, I think that there could be a number of changes to the shrubs that could be native. Then, if you have ornamental plants adjacent to the front walk or whatever, those can be something else and those will change over time with the owners. I think really for the main plantings we do want – I do want to encourage you to use native plants and to also use – you can use non-native plants that are beneficial to wildlife so a non-native plant that has berries is desirable. On the – if I can go back now to the site, I’m not crazy about the private street and the hammerhead and the parking or the limited parking due to the street width. It seems to me that the – if the subdivision is already gone through the public process then I can’t really change that but I’m not crazy about the current layout. There are a couple other items on the site planning that I do want to caution you about is the Post Office – it’s their discretion but often times they won’t deliver to a private house anymore. It’s their call. On a lot of our newer projects, there’s a central mail box cluster or maybe two so we do want to see that in the landscape drawings. A lot of – like new Urban Projects, they use it as a community gathering point. It’s a social space and so if there’s a place for that, that would be great. Sometimes they’re distributed within the project so there may be 3 or 4 so they’re not really community gathering points so either way. It’s their call is my understanding. Also, with the regard to landscape they’re a -- I think you’re showing 6-foot fences between units and I think a lot of times it’s 7-feet is better for privacy. I don’t know what your guys were thinking about that. Especially on small lots where you have less room for landscaping. On the – I think I agree with the Staff recommendations regarding the paving, the detached garages, and the roof pitches. I’m fine with that. I do like that you are dedicating 10-feet to the City for street planting stripes and sideways, that’s great. On the architecture, when I was the IR guidelines just say a way of thinking about them and I found that I was not – I couldn’t meet the findings or met their guidelines for the facades on a number of the units; maybe half of them. Also, for – maybe about 25% of the units about, I was having trouble with the roof forms. Some of them are a little too complicated and we do have a diagram in our IR guidelines and I think that a couple of your units would fall under the not acceptable category. I think I agree with Board Member Baltay, I think there are too many materials particularly, siding, on a number of your units. When I – just as a designer I’m looking at it, I look to see if my eye is bouncing around the page and trying to find where does it rest and I find on quite a number of the units especially, the contemporary ones, my eye is wandering all over the place on it. That’s in our IR guidelines for trying to keep it simple and have a hierarchy of design elements and to tone down all the rest. I think you have a lot of metal siding in standing seam which seems to me to be uncharacteristic of the neighborhood. I’m fine to have some of it. It seems like you guys have more than – seems like there’s an awful lot of it. It seems to be uncharacteristic of the neighborhood so I would like some consideration for that. I think that’s all that I have. Again, I like Board Member Baltay, I have detailed comments on each one of the units but I’m not going to get into that today because I think you have the Board all over the place on this particular project and I think the Staff wants us to come to consensus on a number of points that’s clear for you on how to move forward. I was wondering, if the Board Members are agreeable, I think maybe we do just a straw poll on several different items to make sure that we’ve weighed in. I haven’t heard everybody weigh in on, for example, the detach garages. That way we can just get a sense for the main issues. Does that sound ok? (Crosstalk) (inaudible) from the big point of the unit mix or something and go down… Board Member Baltay: I was thinking maybe the parking – car parking is an easy one for us to approach and it seems to me – what I’ve heard is, at least myself and Wynne felt about getting additional parking on the interior streets some place and I suggested 4 units but that’s something we can give them guidelines on as a Board. Secondly was the two shared driveways off of Maybell. There’s been a lot of City of Palo Alto Page 24 comments about that back and forth. Then the garage placement on the detached units. Maybe if we all just chimed in on how we feel about that. Chair Lew: Why don’t we work on – yeah, the list – let's work on the list and make sure everybody is happy with the list of items and then we’ll – then we can proceed. Board Member Furth; I have a couple items I didn’t think about till you all talked that we can add later. Chair Lew: You can do it now, that’s fine. Board Member Furth: I have additional comments on the utility of the IR and applying our standards but one of the things that concern me in looking at these designs is I can’t see how they are designed to be environmental – how they are designed to be sustainable? How are they oriented to light and heat in ways that will reduce the need for power? I’m also very concerned – I think that communities like this can be wonderful to live in if you have well-designed windows. If you have well – privacy matters are a lot visually and acoustic. I mean I live in a tight, small development that works beautifully and if you have private, really private back door – I mean, outside – outdoor space so I’m going to be wanting to see that each unit has that. Chair Lew: I think we should also maybe discuss the mix of units…(crosstalk) Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I agree. I think there should be (inaudible)(crosstalk)… Chair Lew: …because that seems to be an issue. Board Member Furth: I don’t think this is an appropriate place for George and Terrace’s (inaudible) repeated designs. If anything, I think there’s an access to different approaches. I find the whole – I find the streetscape chaotic in the drawings. I don’t know if it is in real life. Chair Lew: Let’s do it… Board Member Baltay: Maybe I was – there were those large porches in the back of the house. It’s the kind of thing we just get pushed back and forth constantly. Maybe if we gave fairly clear direction on what we really think about that. Chair Lew: Sure. I think – just in – we should do this in a hierarchy, right? I think we should – consider the parking on the private street as 1 because it’s a big site planning issue. Then, we’ll do -- two would be the detach garages because that’s sort of related there. Three would be the unit mix. Four is the shared driveways. Is that the shared driveways on both the private street and Maybell or just Maybell, you were thinking? Board Member Baltay: Just Maybell (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Lew: Maybell only. That’s the main issue. Right. That’s four – I would say five would be sustainable design or maybe passive solar design. Then I think six was just private open space and somewhat related would be seven is the rear porches. For number one… Board Member Gooyer: We were talking about second story porches or balconies also. Chair Lew: Let's lump that all together I think. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Chair Lew: Alright. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, did you have privacy in there? Chair Lew: Yeah, I have privacy or well I have private – I had private outdoor space which was Wynne’s comment as number 6. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, but that would be the second story balcony would also fit into that. Chair Lew: Ok, they’re related. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)(Crosstalk). Board Member Baltay: We are implying the IR guidelines. It’s very well spelled out in those guidelines. Chair Lew: One item number 1, I do have a question just for Staff, on visitor spaces. I know we do that for multi-family units and so what is the requirement for single family houses for visitor parking? Ms. Gerhardt: The requirement for single family homes is two spaces. One must be covered and the other one does not have to be. Chair Lew: That’s for the unit – that’s for the just – that’s just a standard parking… (crosstalk) Ms. Gerhardt: For a standard one house, yes. Chair Lew: There’s no differentiation between a visitor and the occupant? (crosstalk) Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Lew: Yeah. Board Member Gooyer: Don’t forget as soon as they did the parcel map it becomes all types of separate properties. Chair Lew: For the applicant, I think that my understanding is that the applicant is putting three spots per unit? Maybe not on everyone but on many of the units. Mr. O’Hanlon: Yeah, approximately. (Inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: I’m sorry… Chair Lew: Please use the microphone. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Mr. O’Hanlon: Since there’s a variation in driveways between some of the lots. Some of the afford one covered, one uncovered certainly. Then some of the driveways could actually accommodate two cars in addition to that. Another point I think I’d like to make on the parking is the private street – the (inaudible) has designed that with a rolled curb and of course, the fire marshal will paint certain portions of that red which would not permit any parking what so ever. Then there would be a certain about of distance that would not be painted. As we see in a lot of neighborhoods those rolled curbs can accommodate deliveries and family and other cars on the street quite well. I think what the question that will help you guys understand that better might be in the next rendering to identify what the fire marshal – how much of that he’s going to need to stripe red and how much of that might be more available on a day to day basis for the people who live in there. I’d just like to circle back to another point on driveways on Maybell. There are four existing homes on Maybell. One of them has a three-car garage, the other three have two car garages and the curb cuts are 20-feet wide. This is an existing condition. We’re trying City of Palo Alto Page 26 to actually improve it with these lesser curb cuts. It does make things a little bit more difficult for the ultimate homeowners on the lots 2, 3, and 4, 5 but we think and we think the neighborhood agreed with us while we collaborated on that idea that it will be a safer environment. It already is harder to back out onto Maybell at certain times of the day and those renters actually deal with that. We’re not trying to exacerbate a problem, we’re trying to minimize it going forward but… Chair Lew: Can we just hold that off on that. We’ll get to the Maybell driveways in a moment. Board Member Baltay: Can I address…(crosstalk) Chair Lew: (Inaudible)(crosstalk) deliberation is – I do want to ask that if it’s not acceptable to have visitor spots in the driveway and if it really needs to be somewhere else in the street or something? Board Member Baltay: Yeah. What is was going to say is that to me the visitor spot or the extra spot – it’s important that it not seem like it’s in somebody’s driveway. That somebody – anybody coming up that street feels comfortable – say one of these houses is going through an architectural review a few years from now and I want to drive into the street and park and do my thing. I’m not going to park in somebody’s driveway but I want a spot on the street some place where I can park. Our parking regulations do ask for two parking places. That’s based on the assumption that every house is on a street with curb parking and what I’d like to see us do is ask for – I think 4 is a good number – parking spaces that are not distinctly – that are public. That are not visually somehow connected to the houses and I think it could be accomplished by reducing perhaps some of the pavement in front of the houses. Right now, each house has probably space for two cars plus the two on-site spots. That’s more my issues are that they really feel public and there are to be more than just one. Chair Lew: Other Board Members? Board Member Furth: I think that – I don’t know what the number is but I think parking that looks – that is usable by somebody that doesn’t live there is important. I do think that this is a typical problem when we use private streets. I live on one of those. Very little frontage projects and – but we do have public streets and if you don’t, you really undermine the functioning of the day – day to day functioning of living here and that’s really what’s driving me. Chair Lew: Any other comments on that? I would just say for Staff that we do have some other private streets. I know one in particular because my parents live on it. There’s Ponce Drive off of San Antonio Road and it’s a very narrow, private street and it does – like Peter’s comment, it does have – I don’t know maybe 4 or 6 visitor spaces that are separate from the narrow private road and it seems to work. It seems to me to work fairly well. I would be agreeable to that. Should we move on to the detach garages? I think we had some – Robert, I think you very in favor of them and then… Board Member Furth: Can you explain what the issue is? Chair Lew: It’s in the Staff report, right? Board Member Furth: Lot #14? Chair Lew: It’s the two -- 9 and 14 have the detached garages. Lot #14 you have a garage in somebody’s front – facing somebodies front yard. If everybody could weigh in on that. Vice Chair Kim: I think lot #14 situation could just be improved by flip-flopping the uncovered spot and the detach garage so that the adjacent lot – the unit type 3 has a little bit more front before hitting a building. Does that make sense? Chair Lew: You’re saying just shift it towards the house. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Vice Chair Kim: Right so flip flop it with that uncovered spot that’s between the house and the detach garage right now. Board Member Furth: They will have a car parked there instead of a garage? Vice Chair Kim: Sure. Chair Lew: (Inaudible) I think Robert’s concern was pushing it in the backyard so that would preserve the back yard. Board Member Gooyer: No, I didn’t mention that at all. Chair Lew: I thought you did… Board Member Furth: That was Peter. Chair Lew: … that was my understanding. Board Member Baltay: (Crosstalk) I said I think it’s important to allow them to create backyards on projects. I think it’s important but it’s up to them. Shifting it over does accomplish that. I put it to you all if you look at the other one, the detach garage with the 90 degrees turn into it. It’s a tough garage to get into. It’s even tougher to get out of. I think we’re creating these situations that sort of meet the zoning code but don’t meet any practical guidelines to working. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Board Member Baltay: Yes, Robert just suggested flipping of lot #9 so that garage is… Board Member Gooyer: Sort of mimic what’s going on at 14 and then you can take a big chunk of that parking and make it part of the backyard. Board Member Baltay: Maybe our comment to the applicant is two-fold. One that the Staff comment about the garage being right next to the neighbor’s front yard line is correct is should – on lot #14 but you should shift it over and then on Lot #9, the 90 degrees turn in doesn’t really work again on the parking there but why not let the applicant figure out. Chair Lew: I think the Boards in agreement that that is an issue. Board Member Furth: It all comes down to trying to imagine people living here and not getting in fights every morning. Board Member Baltay: You will find that if you take Kyu’s advice and show the vehicles on the site plans – I have little cut outs in paper and I have a radius and I drive them because my clients get very upset they scratch their car on the garage door as you know. Board Member Gooyer: That’s a tight corner there. Chair Lew: I would just mention one other option that I’ve seen in Palo Alto is where – and in other Cities, is that the end of the hammerheads, right? Where you have the private garage and driveway. I’ve seen that’s where they put the guest parking. I’m not telling you to do it that way but I’ve seen it – I have seen it that way so it is an option. Item number 3 is the unit mix. I think some of you have weighed in. Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: I don’t have to may further comment. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Board Member Gooyer: I agree with Peter in the sense that it’s tough – I mean if you design a modern house that doesn’t mean that the floor plan is going to be exactly the same as you would design it for a Spanish or whatever so I think it’s tough to have – like I said, I’d rather see – I don’t think we need to go individually on all 16 but my thought was that they’ve already got 8 units anyway. I ‘d rather see two of each and then you can even have two – I don’t care – you could have two craftsman for instances and that sort of thing. They can be a little bit similar but the thing is, if the floor plans are totally different, nobody is going to equate the two (inaudible) being identical. They just happen to be two craftsman. I’d have – I’d be much better with that then – like on this thing, looking at some of these cases like on Clemo, the two bookended ones. Even though the design is different, you can tell the floor plan is the same. I mean I know my wife keeps saying, only guys like you that are architect’s spots stuff like that but I don’t think that that’s the case. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: I’m not entirely sure what – I mean, unit mix in the case is both this variety of floor plans and that the varieties of stuff stuck on the floor plans on the exterior. That’s a little harsh I’m sure. What I’m looking for is an internal sense of order and some coherence and a harmonious – we don’t say harmony anymore but I want – I don’t care whether those are the same or different but I want those four houses to look good next to each other and if they are different, I’m – this is a subdivision. These are not custom built houses. These are spec. houses and they… Board Member Gooyer: Just because they are spec. houses do they need to look like spec. houses or does… Board Member Furth: They need to look like well-designed houses and I would say, built in 2017 and built as a group so if there are ways to make things to work well together because you have repeated paving materials or fencing materials or whatever (crosstalk) (inaudible)… Board Member Gooyer: That’s the difference that I have because I wanted to in 10-years, people to assume that it wasn’t a track house and that’s the difference. We both want well built, quality homes. We just have a different approach as to a – I guess how to get there and what it should look like. Board Member Furth: Yeah, I use to live in a custom built 1950s gorgeous modern and now I live in a planned unit development and they both have their artistic – architectural satisfaction. They can go with whatever approach they want but if they are all – I don’t want this visual disharmony that I see presently. I think that about as much as I… Board Member Baltay: What I think we’re trying to do is give them feedback that it’s ok to have an eclectic mix of styles and I think all of the use are ok with that basic idea; they should all be the same. We’ve given you a lot of different opinions as to how to accomplish that. You’re not quite there but I’m certainly ok with the overall mix of styles. Chair Lew: I’m fine with the overall mix of styles… (crosstalk) Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, me too. Chair Lew: … and I generally like the floor plans. I don’t really have issues with the floor plans in general as individual units. I think I agree with Wynne’s comment about the solar orientation. I think somebody else mentioned it to. That you’ve got the large patios facing north which isn’t so desirable in my mind. I think we’ll leave it to you guys. I think you guys are skilled enough to understand our comments and come up with something. Why don’t we move on then to four which is the shared driveways on Maybell? I don’t really have a – I’ll let everybody else weigh in. I don’t have an issue with… Board Member Baltay: I thought I spelled out a number reasons why I thought individual driveways where better. I do find myself bothered that they clearly have worked hard with a bunch of stakeholders City of Palo Alto Page 29 and if they’ve come to something that they all like. I think it's – I feel I’m comfortable pushing our way into that. I’d like to think you could consider what I said based on the merits. I think of a minimum, though, you do have to make them work. The garages have to be functional when you have a solid wall 20-feet back from the edge of a garage door. I don’t think that’s functional. It required a skilled driver to get in and out. Chair Lew: For Staff, where the driveways reviewed by transportation? It’s come up before on other projects. You know how they do the back out and a 3-point turn. Mr. Ah Sing: Yes, it was reviewed and so there weren't an issue with them. However, when I do mention about the excessive pavement, there’s not a requirement for how to back out of a garage. If you can get out and get in, then that’s sufficient per the guidelines. Ms. Gerhardt: I do just want to clarify and give you some background. When the subdivision was going through the process, there was a lot of conversation about how many driveways should take access from Maybell. There’s currently four houses, four driveways. The neighborhood really wanted to see that number reduced and so that’s how this idea came to be of these shared driveways so that there are only three curb cuts. I think that the three-curb cut idea is something that a lot of people have worked hard on. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: I tend to agree that if this is what people who live in the vicinity think would work best. They’re probably right and that it’s an enormous contribution to the – an improvement to that City to have the dedicated sidewalk and landscaping area. That’s a tremendous asset. What bothers me and I guess we’ll see this when we put Kyu’s toy cars on this, is that I don’t understand how you back out of some of these. I understand you’re not going to want to back into Maybell. I don’t particularly want you backing into people riding their bikes or walking and I can’t understand how I back out of – for example, lot #2, without going over to lot #3, where I presumably have an easement but what if they’ve got a car parked there? I mean these spaces describe both (inaudible) places to park cars and places to back into. It can be one or the other unless you’ve got a really good working understanding with your neighbor that that will always – anyways. I’m concerned. I need to be shown that they work. I can’t draw that conclusion yet. Board Member Gooyer: I was just playing with this a little bit and based on where the driveway is – what looks to be between 4 and 5. Trying to get from that driveway into the unit at 5 is going to be one real tricky – I mean that’s the driveway and you have to get to there. That’s one real tricky maneuver to get into that garage. Chair Lew: What I’m going to say is the – just for a second – we need transportation to explain how this is going to work in a diagram. Is that… Ms. Gerhardt: I think we’d also ask the applicant to provide the plan set that shows those maneuvers as well. Board Member Baltay: I think Alex –I’ve generally not had positive experiences with transportation division helping us with layouts and I think we really need to use the common sense and experience that we have as a Board to sort of insist that this work in a practical sense. No disrespect to the Transportation Department. They are great when it comes to the streets and parking garages but these are nuanced details that we have the experience about. Generally, when you have a shared driveway, the houses also have a plan that puts two garages facing the street next to each other so you benefit from it. These don’t really have that. I think the applicant probably we – it’s fair enough to say to them that we are not going to insist on individual driveways which are what some of us might like but rather that they need to work better. City of Palo Alto Page 30 Chair Lew: I think that’s fine and it doesn’t look like they work at the moment to me, to my eyes. Let's keep on going. Item five was – I think Wynne, you were looking for sustainable design. Board Member Furth: I haven’t seen any evidence that these buildings are designed with orientations that take advantage – that acknowledge where the sun comes and goes. Either in terms of light within the house or orienting these back porches and I have no idea, with respect to everything else, whether it works or doesn’t but I’d like to know and because these are units being flipped from lot to lot, that makes me skeptical. Chair Lew: Anybody else? Vice Chair Kim: I think if we see each lot with each unit with Cardinal North on each of those plans, that’s going to explain a lot of that. Chair Lew: Especially on both floors too. I think that would help with privacy. Number six was the private outdoor space and privacy. Board Member Baltay: Well… Chair Lew: I think those were the back porches really… Board Member Furth: and the yards. Chair Lew: …and the yards. I think we should clarify on private houses and subdivisions the land – the back landscaping isn’t included typically. Board Member Furth: I understand – sorry (crosstalk) Chair Lew: … but I just wanted to comment that we do have projects like Edgewood Plaza with the houses where they – the developer did include the landscaped screen between units because they were really tight. There was no – I think that the back yards were tiny on that particular project. There may be ways of addressing that in the landscape. Then, if we have the second-floor plan we can look at the window privacy but I think the main comment was on the porches, right? The large back porches. Board Member Baltay: Yes, to me the – a lot of the privacy issues will be addressed as we enforce this – as we review it bases on the IR guidelines and I’m not sure if the applicant is quite – took that into account but I’m just concerned with the large number of very large covered outdoor porches that don’t any functional logic to it. I just don’t think that they should be there. Chair Lew: Then I would add to – just to that that we have another project – we had another subdivision that had second-floor balconies or decks and it made all the downspouts really difficult. At the end of the day – they didn’t show it in any of their drawings but then when it was actually built, it looked terrible because of they – it adds up. All that other clutter adds up so I do think we need to see – I think I share the concern about the balconies. The extent of them, that there are large numbers of them. Board Member Furth: In my neighborhood, these second story balconies are all being replaced because they’ve all rotted after 20-years. Chair Lew: Then the last item or let's see. I’m sorry, I mixed them up. Board Member Baltay: Alex… Chair Lew: We did – let me just finish one thought. That was the porches which I had said before was number seven but that was – we just discussed that. I think Wynne had a comment about private outdoor space, right? That’s a slightly different comment. City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Furth: I was really bringing that up in part because I think that for any of these single- family dwellings to meet the minimum standard for what a single-family dwelling should be. It needs to have some reasonably private, reasonably large outdoor backyard space. Chair Lew: We don’t have a standard. Is that correct, from Staff? We have a 20-foot setback but they don’t have to do – we don’t have any – correct me if I’m wrong but we don’t have any particular requirements for what goes in there. Yeah. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. There’s the 20-foot setback. There isn’t a private open space requirement. Board Member Furth: My standards are going to be functional. Can I eat out there? Can I sit out there? Can I plant out there? I mean, these are supposed to be single family detached houses and that’s an essential element. If there is no space to garden. I’m mostly concerned about – it really came up because this question about the orientation or location of the driveway on lot #14 and I want to know that we have spaces that will let people garden if they want to. Throw a nerf ball, whatever. It’s up to them what they do with it but they shouldn’t be shaded out by their neighbors and they shouldn’t be overlooked excessively by their neighbors. Chair Lew: That’s all I have. If there are any follow-up comments and then I think we’ve used your rebuttal time before but I mean if you do have any – one last thought. Board Member Baltay: I wanted to see if perhaps we could bring the architect up and just see – I’m curious if you’re really familiar with the individual review guidelines from Palo Alto Design Standard? It seems to me like you perhaps didn’t quite have those in the front of your mind when you were designing the houses. Mr. Sakai: Am I familiar with them? Pretty familiar. We’ve done maybe 30 houses in Palo Alto over the last three years. Board Member Baltay: You know what we are talking about regarding second-floor balconies? I see you have a couple of these 5-foot high walls on the sides of them but if you’ve been through the process 30 times. Then you’re very familiar with much of the issues we’ve been a discussion, right? Are you comfortable taking these comments and applying those guidelines a little more? Mr. Sakai: Sure. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Lew: I think the Staff recommendation is to continue this item. Board Member Furth: I’m sorry, can I say one more thing so I just don’t bring it up for the first time later. I know that you’re mostly reserving your comments on an individual or maybe I don’t need to. If we’re going to reserve our comments on the designs of particular structures and whether we think they work (inaudible) to later, I don’t need to say a thing. Chair Lew: I would say, I think other Board Members have sort of picked out a typical example so if there is something that – prime example, I think it would be… (crosstalk) Board Member Furth: Helpful… Chair Lew: …(inaudible) would be helpful to say it now. Board Member Furth: I’m bothered by lot #5 which is a corner lot. It has two frontages and I know that looking at an elevation may not give me an accurate experience of the building and partly, I feel – I look City of Palo Alto Page 32 at that two-story, two window elements and I think, that’s no craftsman design. Those proportions are wrong. This is not a craftsman house. You’re putting in little panes in the fenestration does not make this craftsman. For me, the roofs don’t work. The whole house doesn’t work though I think it could be fine. Probably if you cover this whole thing in brown shingles and grow ivy over it, I’ll be good but it’s too busy. It’s badly proportioned for a craftsman building. I don’t get it. That’s not exactly putting it in technical terms. Chair Lew: I’d like to entertain motions. MOTION Board Member Baltay: I move that we continue this to a date uncertain. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: All in favor? Chair Lew, Vice Chair Kim, Board Member Furth, Board Member Gooyer, Board Member Baltay: Aye. Chair Lew: That passes 5-0 to continue to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSES 5-0 Chair Lew: Thank you, guys. You have a very interesting project. Approval of Minutes for January 19, 2017. Chair Lew: We have one last item which is the approval of the minutes. Are there any comments? I have one comment. For Staff, I think on item #5, the minutes are – how do I say this – where mentioning comments by Matt Raschke in Public Works but I think it was actually Jonathan Lait’s comments on that particular project. It was the Research Park and Matt was here but that was for the fire station project so I think there’s some mix-up in there. I didn’t – once I realized that, I didn’t go back and check to see if all of the other speakers were properly attributed to so maybe if you guys could do that too; just double check. Ms. Gerhardt: We’ll certainly go back and check the names. I think we also found that aerial was – aerial maps was spelled in the wrong way. Chair Lew: There was a lot of miss spellings and especially, landscape species and stuff like that but I think that’s fine on my end. Motion? MOTION Vice Chair Kim: I move that we approve those minutes with those changes that have been mentioned. Chair Lew: A second? Somebody needs to second and I don’t think it’s me. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second it. Chair Lew: Thank you. All in favor? Chair Lew, Vice Chair Kim, Board Member Furth, Board Member Gooyer, Board Member Baltay: Aye. Chair Lew: That passes 5-0. City of Palo Alto Page 33 MOTION PASSES 5-0 Chair Lew: That’s it. We’re adjourned. Thank you, guys. Subcommittee Item None. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements None. Adjournment