Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-07-13 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 And Historic Resources Board Special Meeting Agenda: July 13, 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 9:30 AM JOINT MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD TO HEAR: 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 400 Channing Avenue [16PLN-00380]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Coordinated Development Permit (SOFA I) to Allow the Demolition of an Existing One-Story Medical Office Building and Construction of Two (2) Two-Story Homes, Each With a Full Basement and Secondary Dwelling Unit Above a Detached Two-Car Garage. A Preliminary Parcel Map Application (16PLN-00381) Requesting Subdivision of the Existing Parcel Into Two Parcels Will be Reviewed Through a Separate Process. _______________________ 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. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Certified SOFA Phase 1 EIR has Been Prepared to Clarify Minor Site-Specific Issues That Were Addressed in the Certified EIR. Zoning District: DHS District in the SOFA I CAP. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. 10:30 AM AT THIS TIME THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD WILL HEAR: 3. PUBLIC HEARING/ QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1545 Alma Street [16PLN-00283]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Addition to an Existing Single-Family Residence and 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 (Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 480 Lytton Avenue [17PLN-00052]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Interior and Exterior Modifications to an Existing 6,222 Square Foot Commercial Building, Including a new Façade, Roof, Replacement of all Windows, Landscaping, new Trash Enclosure, and Improvements to the Existing Parking Lot. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CD-C(P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at APetersen@m-group.us 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Complete Streets and Green Infrastructure Project (17PLN-00128): Recommendation on Staff's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review of a Planting Plan in Conjunction With the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Complete Streets and Green Infrastructure Project. The proposal spans 2.3 miles from Miranda Avenue to Fabian Way on Charleston Road and Arastradero Road. The Concept Plan for the Project Was Previously Approved by City Council on September 28, 2015. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Was Prepared for the Project in 2004. An Addendum to the IS/MND Was Prepared in Conjunction With the Concept Plan Approval in 2015. For More Information Contact the Project Engineer Valerie Tam at valerie.tam@cityofpaloalto.org or the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org. _______________________ 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. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 6. June 1, 2017 and June 15, 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 # 7998) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/13/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 400 Channing Avenue: Joint ARB/HRB for SOFA I project (2nd hearing) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 400 Channing Avenue [16PLN-00380]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Coordinated Development Permit (SOFA I) to Allow the Demolition of an Existing One-Story Medical Office Building and Construction of Two (2) Two-Story Homes, Each With a Full Basement and Secondary Dwelling Unit Above a Detached Two-Car Garage. A Preliminary Parcel Map Application (16PLN-00381) Requesting Subdivision of the Existing Parcel Into Two Parcels Will be Reviewed Through a Separate Process. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: DHS District in the SOFA I CAP. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Historic Resources Board (HRB) 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 and HRB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56814. 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 On April 6, 2017, the ARB and HRB reviewed the project in a joint board meeting. A video recording of that meeting is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ferj66yQ0Lg. The Boards’ comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Protection of large oak. Location of Lot 1’s garage/ADU under the canopy of neighbor’s large oak is problematic. The second floor is tiered back (away from 915 Waverley) to provide further clearance from the canopy of the oaks; first- and second-floor plate heights for both garage/ADUs have been reduced. Garage Placement. Confirm vehicles can enter and exit the garages properly. Applicant met with Transportation Division staff to review parking layout and garage access. Dewatering. Proposed basements for both lots may require dewatering. A geotechnical investigation report has been submitted; report findings indicate dewatering will not be necessary. Landscape Detail. A landscaping plan is needed to show the relationship of the structures with open space, existing trees and neighboring properties. Applicant has provided a preliminary landscape plan in the revised project plans (sheet L.1). Design of ADUs. Design and detail of both ADUs need refinement. Applicant has offset the second-floors, changed the porch entries and added minor architectural features to each garage/ADU. Privacy. Lot 1 second floor balcony is a privacy concern. Revised plans remove Lot 1 balcony and size of the windows facing 915 Waverley have been reduced and obscured. ADU size. Floor area of both ADUs should be increased. The floor areas for ADUs for Lots 1 and 2 have been modestly increased. Relocate Palm Tree. The mature Canary Palm Tree located on Lot 1 near the property line along the northern end of the lot should be relocated. Revised plans indicate the applicant still plans on removing the tree per the neighbor’s (426 Channing) request. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Analysis1 The joint ARB/HRB board discussed eight primary areas that the applicant should address as summarized in the previous table. The following sections describe in detail the issues, the responses and whether the revisions are adequate. Protection of Large Oak Members of the joint board expressed concern regarding the location of the proposed garage/ADU structure on Lot 1 negatively impacting the canopy provided by the Coast Live Oaks that border the shared interior side property line between Lot 1 and 915 Waverley Street. Summary of Response and Analysis The applicant has revised the proposed garage/ADU structure on Lot 1, increasing the second- floor right-side setback from 3 feet 6 inches to 5 feet 4 inches along the east wall (facing 915 Waverley Street) to provide added clearance under the canopy of the oaks. Additionally, the plate height of the first-floor has been reduced from 7 feet 9 inches to 7 feet 6 inches and second-floor plate height is reduced from 8 feet 1 inch to 7 feet 9 inches, which results in a 7 inch decrease and lowering of the overall height to 20 feet 2.5 inches for the garage/ADU structure. Prior to the first hearing date of the development application, an arborist from the City’s Urban Forestry Division performed a field inspection of the project site to survey the existing conditions and determine potential impacts of the project proposal. The arborist concluded the initially proposed design would not negatively impact the canopy of the oaks as it provided adequate clearance from the overhanging branches (which can be trimmed back). However, to help ensure the health of the tree canopy, the arborist drafted conditions of approval (see Attachment C for full detail) including specific language that would require branches larger than 4-inches in diameter to be approved by the Urban Forestry Division prior to pruning. Utilizing these conditions of approval along with the proposed revisions to lower the structure’s overall height and tier back the second story to provide added clearance of the canopy would adequately protect against impacting the health and vitality of the oaks. Garage Placement Members of the joint board expressed concern whether the off-street parking layout and garage locations on each lot provided adequate clearance and access. Summary of Response and Analysis As a result of the comments provided by the joint board during the first hearing, the applicant met with the City’s Transportation Division and project planner to review the proposed parking layouts and access points of each lot. Upon review, it was determined the new curb cuts and 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 4 driveway aprons proposed from Channing Avenue and Waverley Street were feasible and that the off-street parking layouts on each lot provide sufficient clearance to access the garages. Dewatering Members of the joint board provided comments expressing concern that the proposed basements on both lots would require dewatering. As such, it was requested the applicant provide a geotechnical soils report to determine the presence of ground water in the subsurface soils and whether based on the findings the proposed basements were feasible. Summary of Response and Analysis Per the request, the applicant hired an engineering contractor to provide a geotechnical report of the project site. The field investigation was performed on April 15, 2017, and included a site reconnaissance and two exploratory borings at a maximum depth of 20 feet. The subsurface soils yielded during the borings were found to consist of silty clay. Ground water was not encountered during drilling operations which terminated at a depth of 20 feet (sub-grade shoring for basement construction to extend to a depth of approximately 13 feet). The report concludes from a geotechnical standpoint the proposed development is feasible for construction on the subject site provided the instructions and construction recommendations included in the report are followed. In addition to the recommended construction practices, the City’s Public Works Engineering department provides standard conditions of approval for basement construction relating to drainage for excavated spaces, lightwells and sub-grade patios; basement shoring parameters and specific dewatering restrictions. See Attachment H for the full geotechnical investigation report. Staff concludes the applicant has adequately responded to the joint board’s request. Landscape Detail Members of the joint board requested a landscaping plan be included with the revised project plans to help define the relationship of the proposed structures with open space, existing trees and neighboring properties. Summary of Response and Analysis The applicant submitted a preliminary landscaping plan (sheet L.1) that identifies the species and location of existing and proposed vegetation, screening shrubs and open space areas on the subject lots. Privacy screening shrubs are indicated along the rear first-floor walls of each ADU to help obscure views into and out of the windows. In addition, the applicant has indicated on the plans a new six-foot tall wooden fence with one-foot lattice to help screen views into the living spaces on the first-floor of the proposed main residence on Lot 1, as requested by the property owner at 915 Waverley Street. The applicant has provided a table on Sheet L-2 that specifies the sizes and quantities of the proposed plant materials. Any modifications to the proposed landscape plan made at the discretion of the ARB can be incorporated as a condition of approval. Design of ADUs City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Members of the joint board requested the designs of the garage/ADU structures on both lots to be further refined to match the quality and detail of the main residences. Summary of Response and Analysis The following descriptions are summaries of the changes to the garage/ADUs proposed by the applicant in response to the joint board’s request: Lot 1 – Garage/ADU The overall height of Lot 1’s garage/ADU was lowered to reduce building mass. The roof eaves have been extended to one foot to match the primary unit’s roof overhang. In the previous design, the second floor was offset in all directions, resulting in small lower roof lines. It is now proposed with only an offset on the right-side at the second-floor to provide more distinctive articulation and further distance away from 915 Waverley Street, with the three remaining sides now providing no offset with the intent of providing a cleaner appearing façade. In addition, the revised design eliminates the entry porch on the second-floor to create a simpler roof form and now includes a window with planter box in front of the kitchen area in the ADU. The roof pitch of the ADU (5:12) and primary unit (8.5:12) remain the same. Lot 2 – Garage/ADU The overall height of Lot 2’s garage/ADU was lowered to reduce building mass. The revised design proposes 16 inch eave overhangs to better match the primary unit’s proposed 24 inch overhangs while maintaining proportionality relative to the scale of each building. The revisions include offsetting the second floor at the right (east) side to simplify the lowered roof lines, while the previous design’s small perimeter roof separating each floor has been removed. A gable roof and brackets have also been added above the garage door to better resemble the design of the primary unit. The applicant has attempted to respond to the joint board’s direction with the aforementioned design revisions. Staff acknowledges these revisions maintain conformance with PAMC and DHS Development Standards. However, the dissimilar roof pitches of Lot 1’s dwelling units and generally homogenous floor plan layouts and architectural design may be in conflict with DHS Design Guidelines 2.1 (c)(e), which call for consistent architectural characteristics and style throughout the design of all related structures and variation of unit sizes and floor plans to create diversity in design and character. As such, additional discussion may be warranted by the joint board to address how these guidelines are being satisfied. Further design revisions could be made a condition of approval and returned to the ARB subcommittee for further review. The applicant’s description of the changes can be found in Attachment F. Privacy Members of the joint board identified specific privacy concerns related to the proposed second- floor balcony at the rear of Unit One’s main residence. Summary of Response and Analysis City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The applicant has made revisions which address potential privacy concerns with the abutting properties, including complete removal of the balcony from the design of Unit One’s main residence; fully obscuring all first- and second-floor bathroom windows; obscuring all windows along the interior facing walls of Unit One either completely or to five feet; providing screening shrubs along the rear property lines; and increasing the setbacks of the garage/ADU structures on both lots from the rear property line to a minimum of 5 feet at the first-floor. Staff concludes the proposed revisions in current form would adequately address potential privacy concerns. ADU Size Members of the joint board provided comments concerning the floor area of each proposed ADU being too small and needing to be increased. Summary of Response and Analysis The applicant has made revisions that increase the floor areas of both ADUs. Lot 1’s ADU has been increased modestly from 363.4 sf to 396.4 sf and Lot 2’s ADU increased from 353.6 sf to 456.0 sf. The applicant’s ability to increase the ADU floor areas is limited in part by the parameters of the proposed new lot dimensions and layout. Significant increases to the floor areas would further increase the footprint of the ADU structure, potentially resulting in cantilevered second-floor designs over the garage and increased building mass that could negatively impact the neighboring property owners. In an effort to determine appropriate ADU floor area size for DHS development, an analysis of the floor area sizes of the 11 ADU units of the nearby SummerHill Homes DHS development. These homes were constructed with the same “cottage” design that places the ADU above the detached garage. The analysis indicates the average size of the SummerHill ADUs being approximately 403 sf (ranging from 370 sf to 446 sf), which is comparable to the floor areas (353.6 sf and 456.0 sf) proposed by the applicant. The following table provides a breakdown of ADU floor areas and lot sizes of the SummerHill development in relation to the proposed 400 Channing Avenue development. SummerHill Homes and 400 Channing Avenue - ADU Comparison Table Address ADU Floor Area (% of FAR) Lot Size *Total Floor Area (FAR %) 872 Waverley Street 373 sf (12.3%) 4,369 sf 3,019 sf (69.1%) 862 Waverley Street 370 sf (13.2%) 4,373 sf 2,798 sf (64.0%) 852 Waverley Street 420 sf (14.9%) 4,373 sf 2,815 sf (64.3%) 842 Waverley Street 370 sf (13.1%) 4,375 sf 2,830 sf (64.6%) 832 Waverley Street 420 sf (14.9%) 4,367 sf 2,815 sf (64.4%) 865 Waverley Street 446 sf 4,838 sf n/a 351 Channing Avenue 410 sf (14.4%) 4,361 sf 2,837 sf (65.0%) 355 Channing Avenue 403 sf (14.4%) 4,361 sf 2,798 sf (64.1%) 359 Channing Avenue 403 sf (14.3%) 4,361 sf 2,807 sf (64.3%) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 363 Channing Avenue 403 sf (14.2%) 4,362 sf 2,830 sf (64.8%) 367 Channing Avenue 420 sf (14.9%) 4,361 sf 2,815 sf (64.5%) 400 Channing Ave. (Lot 1) 396.4 sf (11.5%) 5,312.5 sf 3,452.2 sf (64.9%) 400 Channing Ave. (Lot 2) 456.0 sf (13.2%) 5,312.5 sf 3,450.7 sf (64.9%) *Basement floor areas excluded The applicant has responded to the joint board’s request to increase the ADU floor areas. Relocation of Palm Tree Members of the joint board requested the Canary palm tree (Tree #10 on Sheet A.2 of the site plan) proposed for removal be maintained and relocated elsewhere on either lot. Summary of Response and Analysis The mature palm tree is located on Lot 1 adjacent to the north property line in contrast to the five other prominently located palms along the lot frontages off Waverley Street and Channing Avenue. The applicant is proposing removal of the tree in part to allow sufficient space for the proposed new garage/ADU structure in the rear yard of Lot 1, as well as to accommodate the property owners at 426 Channing Avenue who have requested the tree be removed due to the tree’s roots uplifting the concrete masonry wall along the shared property line. Should the board recommend the subject palm tree (Tree #10) be relocated rather than removed, a condition of approval can be included that would require relocating the tree to a viable location elsewhere on Lot 1, subsequent to review and approval of the Urban Forestry Department. Additional Considerations The applicant is seeking to further reduce the front yard setbacks of both proposed main residences from 21 feet to 20 feet for Unit One and from 20 feet 6 inches to 19 feet 6 inches for Unit Two. This reduction is proposed to improve visual compatibility with the adjacent developments at the three other corners of Waverley Street and Channing Avenue, which have a combined average front setback distance of approximately 12 feet. The revisions also serve to accommodate the increased rear yard setbacks proposed for each garage/ADU structure and to maintain the necessary off-street parking clearance and access to each garage. Staff concludes there is sufficient reasoning for decreasing the front yard setbacks based on the existing conditions of the site, neighborhood context, and for the purpose of improving compatibility with “existing architectural and/or historical heritage of South of Forest Avenue area and Professorville neighborhoods" as specified in DHS Design Guidelines 2.1 (a). See Attachments D & E for detailed tables on the proposed revisions. 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA in accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (b) New Construction. A Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) report was prepared for staff by Page & Turnbull. This report found the property ineligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Places under any criterion, and therefore 400 Channing Avenue did not qualify as a historic resource for the purpose of review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The complete HRE was included as an attachment in the staff report submitted for the application’s first hearing on April 6, 2017, which can be viewed here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56814 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 June 30, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 30, 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. 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 ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575 phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: Unit One (aka Lot One) Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Unit Two (aka Lot Two) Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX) Attachment F: Applicant’s Response to ARB Hearing Comments (DOCX) Attachment G: April 6, 2017 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Attachment H: Geotechnical Report (PDF) Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 120-17-1 120-17-017 120-17-018 120-17-032 0-17-033 120-17-025 120-17-030 120-17-059 120-17-060 120-17-049 120-17-045 120-17-044 120-17-042 120-17-067 120-17-027 120-17-028 120-17-066 120-17-046 120-17-048 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 50 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0'50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 51.7' 100.0' 51.7' 50.0' 78.0' 50.0' 78.0' 50.0' 34.5'50.0' 34.5' 37.5 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 39.5' 75.0' 5.5' 50.0' 20.0' 12.5' 25.0' 112.5' 100.0' 50.0' 125.0'125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0'50.0'50.0' 0.0' 135.0' 50.0' 135.0' 50.0' 135.0' 62.5' 135.0' 62.5' 85.0' 125.0' 85.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 90.0' 250.0' 90.0' 250.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 5 150.0' 00 0.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0'65.0' 12.5' 135.0' 62.5' 65.0' 150.0' 65.0' 150.0'50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 175.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50 100.0' 50.0' 100.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 115.1' 38.0' 115.1' 37.9' 38.0' 115.1' 38.0' 115.1' 38.0' 115.1' 80' 115.1' 38.1' 115.1' 38.0' 38.0' 114.8' 38.0' 114.8' 114.8' 48.3' 100.3' 48.3' 100.0' 85.5' 74.8'85.7' 75.0' 50.0' 80.2' 50.0' 80.0' 942 832 920 912 362 370 900 459 840836834 845 400 928 930 931933 835-837 451 453 980960 990 959 947 925915 933 935 425 449 458 460 440 428 426 904 912 468 918 865 857 441 441A 821 829 818-824 2A 842 852A 852 862A 862 872A 872 351A 351 A 425 936350 915 45 352 354 940 Y ST REE T NG AVEN UE R EET C HANNING AVEN UE W AVERLEY S TRE ET PF DHS P This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Staff-Coverage Districts, Project Review Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk Underlying Lot Line abc Easement Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'80' 400 Channing Avenue CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ebrenna, 2017-03-20 11:18:43Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) SITE ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 400 Channing Avenue 16PLN-00380 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The applicable Comprehensive Plan polices and the project’s conformance is described in the table below. Comprehensive Plan Applicable Policies: Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS). The project continues the DHS land use. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. The proposed project accomplishes the stated goal by redeveloping an existing parcel by replacing a medical office, which is a non- permitted land use in the DHS zoning district and replacing it with a residential development that efficiently utilizes the 10,625 sf lot. The attractive architectural design and use of high-quality materials will enhance the streetscape and help integrate the new development into the existing neighborhood aesthetic. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The proposed lot sizes are comparable to the abutting properties and those within nearby vicinity of the subject lots. The sizes (i.e. square footage) of the homes are within the prescribed allowances specified by the DHS Development Standards and Design Guidelines and in appropriate context of the surrounding neighborhood properties. Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. The project will add four new dwelling units to the City’s housing inventory which serves in helping to address local housing needs, as well as regionally. Goal L-2: An Enhanced Sense of “Community” with Development Designed to Foster Public Life and Meet Citywide Needs. The project converts the previously non-permitted medical office land use to permitted residential use, which results in more intuitively connected land use patterns in the context of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 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 sites are located in the University South neighborhood and within approximately 3-4 blocks to the eating, retail and service establishments found along both Hamilton and University Avenue and within half block of Heritage Park. 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 proposed residential layout complies to the DHS-1 Residential Prototype (i.e. detached houses with rear units) and designed after compatible architectural styles that harmonize with the existing home designs found in the SOFA and Professorville neighborhoods. Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians. The project maintains the existing sidewalk network and features engaging residential designs visible from the street and walkways of both primary residences leading to the sidewalk. The project will also preserve the existing street trees and mature Canary Island palm trees that line the pedestrian corridor along Channing Avenue. South of Forest Area (Phase I) Applicable Policies: South of Forest Area (Phase I) Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to South of Forest Area (Phase I) Policies The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS). The project continues the DHS land use. Land Use Policy L-1: Provide approximately 300 or more units of new housing in the Plan Area, with upward of one-third of the proposed new units to be accommodated on the former PAMF sites to increase the probability they will be developed in the near term. The project fulfills the policy by developing land owned or leased by PAMF, providing in-fill housing development that will increase the City’s housing inventory with four new dwelling units. Policy L-4: Limit non-residential uses on previously PAMF owned land within the SOFA area east of Ramona Street to those that support residential uses, encourage historic preservation and/or facilitate acquisition of public facilities or open space. Office uses made non-conforming will be allowed only where they are required to preserve historically significant buildings or where housing reuse may not be feasible. Allow continued use of the Roth building as residential, PAMF satellite medical facility or other office use, if the City does not acquire the building for a public use. The project fulfills the policy by converting the previously non-permitted medical office land use to permitted residential use, which aids in limiting non-residential uses on previously PAMF owned land east of Ramona Street. Policy L-5: All PAMF owned properties, with the exception of the Roth building and 737 Bryant Street shall be converted to uses consistent with the land use designation within this Plan. The project converts a previously PAMF owned property to a permitted residential land consistent with the land use designation within the SOFA I CAP. Housing Policy H-1: Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the Plan Area, with residential use as the predominant land use for the former PAMF sites. The project fulfills the policy by contributing four new dwelling units to the City’s housing inventory. Policy H-3: Provide for increased residential densities including additional lower cost ownership and rental housing within traditional historic housing types. Encourage the use of second units where permitted, however, mitigation measures to minimize potential impact should be incorporated, including but not limited to, increased setbacks, stepbacks in height, installation of trees, etc. The project increases residential density, providing an accessory dwelling unit on each lot (i.e. second units), as permitted in the DHS zoning district, which have the potential to serve as lower-cost rental units. Policy H-6: Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities, and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes. Each proposed lot is comprised of a large primary residence in the front of the lot with a separate accessory dwelling unit (“cottage”) constructed on top of a detached garage in the rear. This lot layout provides multiple housing types that can accommodate traditional family sized units, as well as single working professionals, college students, independent retirees, et cetera. Design Character Policy DC-1: Preserve and protect existing street trees, planning new development so that damage or removal of existing healthy street trees is minimized. The two street trees (a Southern Magnolia & Valley Oak) adjacent to the project site, in the planter strip parallel to Channing Avenue, will be maintained and protected through construction using modified type II tree protection measures. Policy DC-2: Driveways, walkways and structures shall be located so as to preserve existing street trees wherever possible. Protective measures should be taken in construction and landscaping to assure the continued health to assure the continued health of existing street trees where appropriate. The project designs have taken into consideration the existing trees on the lot. Unit One’s front walkway is curved out of the Canary Island Palm’s dripline to lessen any surface level impact on its root system. The front setback of Unit Two was increased approximately 2.5 feet to add clearance between the structure and the canopy and root system of the existing Coast Live Oak. Architectural Design Policy DC-19: Promote quality design as defined by style, detail, massing, materials, etc. Implementation of the design guidelines should allow for flexibility and diversity in relation to the overall content of the neighborhood area. The project designs were reviewed by the City’s consulting architect to ensure the quality and cohesiveness of design was in keeping with the proposed architectural styles, conformance with the DHS Design Guidelines and neighborhood context. The applicant worked with the consulting architect to refine aspects of the design to reduce massing and scale and enhance the overall quality and presentation of each home. Policy DC-25: No development inconsistent with the development standards and design guidelines included in this Coordinated Area Plan shall be approved. Exceptions may only be granted in accordance with the exception process described in Chapter IV. The proposed project is consistent with the specific DHS Development Standards and Design Guidelines provided in the SOFA I CAP. The required findings necessary for granting a minor exception to allow for modified front setbacks on both lots can feasibly be made under the criteria described in Chapter IV. 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 reconnects the land use to the surrounding residential land use pattern, removing a non-permitted medical office use and replacing it with residential units that will visually enhance the streetscape along Waverley Street and Channing Avenue. Structural footprints on each lot were designed to incorporate the natural existing features, preserving both protected and notable trees that are characteristic to the lot and intersection. Building heights, mass and scale are respectful of abutting properties and congruent with the surrounding block patterns. Finding #2.c. is not applicable to this site, as the Municipal Code does not provide context- based design criteria for the Detached Houses on Small Lots 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 proposed designs utilize traditional Craftsman and English Cottage styles that help meld the homes into the surrounding architectural aesthetic. The use of high-quality materials and finishes help define and clarify the respective architectural motif of each primary residence convincingly. The City’s consulting architect and applicant worked together throughout the process to improve the scale and composition of forms, integrate appropriate design details to accentuate visual appeal and refine the design to better relate to the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The lot configuration places the frontages of both lots along Waverley Street; Unit Two providing its driveway access off of Channing Avenue; and Unit One providing its driveway access off of Waverley Street. This configuration was deemed to be the most functionally intuitive design, providing separation of properties, open space areas and preventing a larger hardscaped rear yard area that would be necessary for accommodating a shared driveway and uncovered parking spaces. Visual sight lines when egressing from Unit One’s driveway onto Waverley Street may be obstructed due to a four foot fence and proposed landscaping strip along the fence toward the public-right-of-way. This obstruction may be mitigated by utilizing low-profile landscaping hedges or bushes in the planter strip. 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: The layouts of both lots were purposefully designed to work with the natural existing features on the lot. Consideration was given when designing and placing the primary and accessory structures on each respective lot to preserve the existing protected and notable trees that serve in softening the structural profile and streetscape of the new homes. Further enhancements utilizing xeriscaping techniques and indigenous drought tolerant plant material can be included in more developed landscaping plans. 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 is in accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations and satisfies the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 400 Channing Avenue 16PLN-00380 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, “New Two-Single Family Residences – 400 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301” stamped as received by the City on May 4, 2017, 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: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $254,417.72 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 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, Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PCE TRANSPORTATION 8. BICYCLE PARKING: One long-term bike parking per unit shall be provided as part of this project consistent with bike design standards within Section 18.54.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Depending on the product type, minimum clearances between the rack and vertical obstructions are necessary for functional and practical use. Show the location of the required bike parking on the site plan and include the supply on the parking inventory/lot coverage compliance table, and provide a product specification for the proposed bike parking fixture. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 9. SUBDIVISION: Map types and review procedures vary depending on the number of units proposed. Depending on the number of units proposed, the applicant shall submit a minor or major subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Parcel or Tentative map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. 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. Tentative/Final maps are submitted under a Major Subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Public Works will review and provide comments on the documents provided as part of the submittal. Please be advised that under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, off-site improvement plans are processed as an extension of the subdivision application process and the applicant may be required to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement and provide security for work shown in the plans. 10. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must 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, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan 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. 11. 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). 12. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 13. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 14. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 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 a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the 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. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Applicant shall install a water station for the reuse of dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed next to the right-of-way and shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station shall also be sued for onsite dust control. Applicant shall meet with Public Works to coordinate the design details. 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. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 15. 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. 16. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. 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: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 17. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 18. 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 19. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. RESIDENTIAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 23. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of- way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public- right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” BUILDING INSPECTION PRIOR TO ANY FUTURE RELATED PERMIT APPLICATION SUCH AS BUILDING PERMT, EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANE, STREET WORK PERMIT, ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, ET CETERA: 24. A minimum of 500 sf of dedicated roof area is required for the solar ready infrastructure for each (N) dwelling unit. (PAMC 16.17) 25. Detached garages shall be protected by fire sprinklers where the garage walls has been designed based on Table R302.1(2). (CRC R309.5) 26. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT: 27. OAK TREE PROTECTION: The applicant shall protect oak trees #11 and 12 as described in the tree protection report on Sheet T-2. The height and position of overhanging tree branches and limbs shall be documented to identify branches that may need to be pruned; no branches larger than 4 inches in diameter shall be pruned without prior approval from the Urban Forestry Section. The project arborist must perform a monthly activity inspection reporting on all conditions, tree health and retention, as well as monitor all construction activities within identified tree protection zones (TPZs), submitting a monthly tree activity report for review by the Urban Forestry Section. This monthly report shall be shared with any neighboring property owner(s) with trees overhanging into the project sites. Additionally, the project arborist shall supervise demolition within TPZs, root cutting, pruning of branches, soil compaction or excavation, and any other activities that may impact trees. 28. The project arborist shall inspect, monitor, protect, and provide needed maintenance for any protected status oak trees as described in the tree protection report. Landscaping must be compatible with the health and vitality of native oaks, including prohibiting any turf grass within 25 feet of the main trunk. Landscaping and irrigation recommendations and cautions shall be added to the tree protection report on sheet T-2. 29. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures as a condition of the building permit, Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. The 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. WATER, GAS & WASTEWATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT The comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: 32. 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.). 33. 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. 34. 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). 35. 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. 36. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all 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. 37. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 38. A new 2” HDPE pipe water service line installation for domestic & fire protection usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 39. A new 1” PE gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. 40. A new 4” HDPE pipe sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. 41. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS NOTICE FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER 6/22/15.: Please be advised that the Palo Alto City Council has approved Energy Ordinance 5326 and Green Building Ordinance 5326 for all new permit applications with an effective date for June 22nd, 2015, as summarized below. To review the specific changes, visit the Development Services webpage .On the left hand side under “explore”, hover over “Green Building” and select “Compliance” You may also email Melanie Jacobson at Melanie.Jacobson@CityofPaloAlto.org for specific questions about your project. 45. GREEN BUILDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project is a new construction residential building of any size and therefore must meet the California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select a Green Building Special Inspector from the City’s list of approved inspectors. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18 as described in the Energy Reach Code section below. b) EMERGENCY DROUGHT REGULATIONS: The project is a residential new construction project with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2 in accordance with the Emergency Drought Regulations effective June 1st, 2015. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the ET adjustment factor (ETAF) of 0.55 for landscaped areas. Vegetable gardens and other areas that qualify as Special Landscape Areas (SLA) will be given an ETAF of 1.0. (PAMC 16.14 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) and the Emergency Drought Regulations link below. The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/2015TriCycle/BSC-Meetings/Emergency-Regs/HCD-EF-01-15-ET- Pt11.pdf c) The project is a residential construction project of any size and therefore must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at tier 2 (75% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) d) The project is a new detached single-family dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) as shown in : (a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100- ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420 (Ord. 5234 § 2, 2015) 46. LOCAL ENERGY REACH CODE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project includes new residential construction of any size and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential, 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) b) The project includes renovated residential construction greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code and shall comply with one of the following: (1) OPTION 1: Performance: For renovated single-family residential projects, 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 5% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (2) OPTION 2: Prescriptive: For all renovated single-family residential, the prescriptive approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate compliance and shall meet the following if included in the scope of work: (a) For complete roof alterations that are not considered repairs, the roofing surface material shall have an Aged Solar Reflectance rate greater than or equal to 0.28. (b) For exterior walls on addition projects, the walls shall have a u-factor of 0.48 or lower. Additional Green Building and Energy Reach Code information, ordinances and applications can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any questions regarding Green Building requirements please call the Green Building Consultant at (650) 329-2179. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 400 Channing Avenue, 16PLN-00380 Unit One Table 1: Compliance with SOFA I CAP – DHS Development Standards Regulation Requirement Proposed (revised) Minimum/Maximum Site Area 2,800 sf/5,000 sf 5,312.5 sf Min. Site Width No requirement 42.5 sf Min. Site Depth No requirement 125 feet Front Setback (Waverley Street) 15 feet or block face average in which the subject property is located 20 feet Side Yard Setback (interior lots) 6 feet (either side) for primary residence; no req. for garages/detached accessory structures Primary Residence Garage/ADU 6 feet (left side); 10 feet (right side) First-floor: 2 feet (right side), 16 feet 7 inches (left side) Second-floor: 5 feet 4 inches (right side), 16 feet 7 inches (left side) Rear Yard Setback Min. 20 feet; min. 3 feet for detached ADU 47 feet 8 inches; 5 feet for garage/ADU Floor Area Ratio 65% for lots with a detached accessory cottage 64.9% Floor Area Max. for Detached Accessory Units 750 sf maximum for accessory unit exclusive of covered parking 396.4 sf Site Coverage No requirement 37.8% Building Height 30 feet for primary residence; 25 feet for accessory cottage 29 feet 6 inches (primary); 20 feet 5.5 inches (garage/ADU) CONFORMANCE WITH PARKING STANDARDS Type Requirement Proposed Vehicle Parking 1.5 spaces/unit for 2 units (min. 1 covered space per unit) 3 spaces (2 covered; 1 uncovered) Bicycle Parking none 2 (40”W x 74”L x 48”H) long- term bike storage lockers provided ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 400 Channing Avenue, 16PLN-00380 Unit Two Table 1: Compliance with SOFA I CAP – DHS Development Standards Regulation Requirement Proposed (revised) Minimum/Maximum Site Area 2,800 sf/5,000 sf 5,312.5 sf Min. Site Width No requirement 42.5 sf Min. Site Depth No requirement 125 feet Front Setback (Waverley Street) 15 feet or block face average in which the subject property is located 19 feet 6 inches Side Yard Setback (street side lots) 10 foot min. (street side) for primary residence; 6 foot min. (interior side); no req. for garages/detached accessory structures Primary Residence Garage/ADU 10 feet (left side); 6 feet (right side) First-floor: 1 foot 10 inches (right side), 16 feet (left side) Second-floor: 4 feet (right side), 16 feet (left side) Rear Yard Setback Min. 20 feet; min. 3 feet for detached accessory cottage (second unit) 46 feet 8 inches; 5 feet for the garage/ADU Floor Area Ratio 65% for lots with a detached accessory cottage 64.9% Floor Area Max. for Detached Accessory Units 750 sf maximum for accessory unit exclusive of covered parking 456.0 sf Site Coverage No requirement 38.4% Building Height 30 feet for primary residence; 25 feet for accessory cottage 26 feet 8.5 inches (primary); 20 feet 8 inches (garage/ADU) CONFORMANCE WITH PARKING STANDARDS Type Requirement Proposed Vehicle Parking 1.5 spaces/unit for 2 units (min. 1 covered space per unit) 3 spaces (2 covered; 1 uncovered) Bicycle Parking none 2 (40”W x 74”L x 48”H) long- term bike storage lockers provided 400 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto Lot One and Lot Two Front Setback: During the ARB meeting on April 6, 2017, the committee members suggested that the DHS zone is the transition zone between downtown high density area and low density residential area, and that the front setbacks of the three corners of Waverley Street and Channing Avenue should be considered in determining the front setback of the subject project. The average front setback of the three corners is approximate 12’-1”. We believe that reducing the design front setback of Lot One and Two (from 21’-0” to 20’-0” for Lot One and from 20’-6” to 19’-6” Lot Two) would be more compatible with the neighboring properties, serving as the transition from higher density residences with less front setback to lower density residences with more front setback. See sheet A.2. Lot One Main House: 1. The front setback is revised from 21’-0” to 20’-0” with above mentioned reasoning. Further, the rear porch of the main house is eliminated. These are necessary to provide 5’ rear setback for the garage/cottage and still have enough space for vehicle turn around. The setback of the building corner close to 915 Waverley Street is 24’-4”. The rear setback is revised from 46’-8” to 47’-8”. See sheet A.2. 2. The following are in response to the neighboring owner’s request (915 Waverley Street): a) Eliminate the balcony at the second floor master bedroom. See sheet A.3, A.4, A.5 and A.6. b) Change the two side windows facing 915 Waverley Street from 2’wide x 3’high to 2’wide x 2’ high with obscure glazing. See sheet A.5. c) Remove the right side fence between 915 Waverley Street and the subject property and replaced with new 6’ high wood fence with 1’ high wood latter. See sheet A.2 and L.1. 3. Eliminated the decorative cast stone window trims at two front windows per Mr. Peter Baltay’s comments. See sheet A.5. Lot One Garage/Cottage: 1. Revised the rear setback from 3’ to 5’. The plate height of the first floor garage is revised from 7’-9” to 7’-6” and the plate height of the second floor cottage is revised from 8’-1” to 7’-9”. The overall height of the structure is reduced from 21’-7” to 20’-5-1/2”. The size of the cottage is increased from 363SF to 396SF. The second floor right side setback is increased from 3’-6” to 5’-4”. See sheet A.2, A.7 and A.8. Lot Two Main House: The front setback is revised from 20’-6” to 19’-6” with above mentioned reasoning. Lot Two Garage/Cottage: 1. Revise the rear setback from 3’ to 5’. The plate height of the first floor garage is revised from 7’-9” to 7’-6” and the plate height of the second floor cottage is revised from 8’-1” to 7’-9”. The overall height of the structure is reduced from 21’-2” to 20’-8”. The size of the cottage is increased from 353SF to 456SF. The second floor right side setback is increased from 3’-6” to 5’-4”. See sheet A.2, A.14 and A.15. Landscape Design A preliminary landscape plan is completed. See Sheet L.1. Geotechnical Investigation Report A geotechnical Investigation Report with onsite soil boring is completed. As noted in the report, no groundwater was found at boring depth of 20’, well below the basement pad elevation. Dewatering is not needed during the construction. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7837) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 400 Channing Avenue: Four Units in SOFA I CAP Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 400 Channing Avenue [16PLN-00380]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Coordinated Development Permit (SOFA I) to Allow the Demolition of an Existing One-Story Medical Office Building and Construction of Two (2) Two-Story Homes, Each With a Full Basement and Secondary Dwelling Unit Above a Detached Two-Car Garage. A Preliminary Parcel Map Application (16PLN-00381) Requesting Subdivision of the Existing Parcel Into Two Parcels Will be Reviewed Through a Separate Process. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Certified SOFA Phase 1 EIR has Been Prepared to Clarify Minor Site-Specific Issues That Were Addressed in the Certified EIR. Zoning District: DHS District in the SOFA I CAP. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed new homes including the requested minor exceptions to allow front yard setbacks of 20 feet 6 inches (Unit Two) and 21 feet (Unit One). Report Summary This report is provided to facilitate the ARB and HRB discussion and public hearing of a proposal for the construction of two new two-story, single-family residences and two accessory cottages (Accessory Dwelling Units, above detached parking garages) on two proposed residential lots in City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 University South neighborhood. The project is subject to the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan and Coordinated Development Permit process, which requires review and recommendation from a combined ARB and HRB to determine whether the project is consistent with SOFA Phase I CAP development standards and design guidelines specific to the DHS (Detached Houses on Small Lots) zoning district. The existing single-story building to be demolished, located on a 10,625 square foot lot at the corner of Channing Avenue and Waverley Street in the University South neighborhood, is a significantly modified, former residential building determined to be ineligible for listing as a historic resource in a recent historic evaluation (Attachment H). The project will provide four new housing units to increase the City’s housing inventory and as designed, the project meets the applicable DHS development standards, with a minor exception for the proposed front yard setbacks. Additional details are requested to ensure design components fit with the selected architectural styles. The joint board is encouraged to review the project in the context of the surrounding neighborhood character, development potential and design aesthetic. Draft findings and conditions are included with this report, including special project-related findings and conditions related to reducing the required front yard setback along Waverley Street to 20 feet 6 inches for Unit Two and 21 feet for Unit One. The joint board may continue the project or forward a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on the draft findings and conditions, which may be modified by the Board. Background In March 2000, the City Council adopted the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan- Phase 1 (SOFA 1 CAP), for the neighborhood located south of Forest Avenue in Downtown Palo Alto. The SOFA 1 CAP includes the designation of the subject site as DHS (Detached Houses on Small Lots). The site currently has its address and front yard along Channing Avenue. The pattern of residential development on three of the four corners at this intersection is front yards facing Waverley, the side street. Prior to the DHS zoning, the site was zoned in a manner that permitted office use. The building was used by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) prior to the adoption of the SOFA CAP; it was most recently in medical office use, which is not a permitted use in the DHS zone district. The (DHS) zoning district designation prescribes unique development standards and design guidelines (reference SOFA CAP, p. 95-100). Additional background information is found in the Analysis section of this report. Project Information Owner: GLWS LLC Architect: Jing Quan of WEC & Associates Representative: Jing Quan of WEC & Associates Legal Counsel: Not applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Property Information Address: 400 Channing Avenue Neighborhood: University South Lot Dimensions & Area: 85.00 feet x 125.00 feet Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes; one (1) redwood; one (1) Valley Oak; and three (3) Coast Live Oaks Historic Resource(s): No, as further evaluated in Attachment H Existing Improvement(s): 3,304 sf Office Building circa 1920 Existing Land Use(s): Medical Office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-2, DHS West: DHS East: R-2, PC South: R-2 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS) Comp. Plan Designation: Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS) Context-Based Not applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Design Criteria: Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: SOFA 1 CAP (note: the plan contains outdated chapter references such as parking regulation, now in PAMC Chapters 18.52 and 18.54) Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): The site is located within and adjacent to residential uses and districts Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed demolition, orientation of the new lots, and new homes on the site are intended to reflect the existing density and lot pattern found in the immediate vicinity. The non- conforming office use will be replaced by conforming residential uses within the zone district. The existing 3,304 sf one-story office building would be demolished and replaced with two new two-story single-family residences, each with a full basement and detached two-car garage with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage. The project designs have taken into consideration the existing trees on the lot. The development application was submitted in conjunction with a separate preliminary parcel map application (16PLN-00381) requesting to subdivide the 10,625 sf lot into two separate 5,312.5 sf parcels with frontages oriented along Waverley Street. The new lots would exceed the specified maximum lot size of 5,000 sf. However, provisions outlined in the DHS Development Standards do allow for variations to the minimum and maximum lot sizes. The proposed corner lot immediately adjacent to Channing Avenue is defined as Unit Two and provides driveway access off of Channing; the interior lot is defined as Unit One and provides driveway access off of Waverley. The proposed home designs differ from one another, incorporating exterior design cues from Craftsman and English cottage architectural styles respectively. Attachments D & E provide the proposed dimensions and coverages of each unit/lot with respect to the DHS zoning district’s development standards. Unit One Proposal Unit one is proposed as a two-story residence designed in the English Cottage architectural City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 style featuring steeply pitched roof profiles. The proposed entry would be located at the front- facing gable with a ‘catslide’ roof that is steep and straight on one side and artistically curved on the other. The front entry door is shown arched, with decorative hardware. The exterior materials would consist of smooth finished stucco and dark brown colored composition shingle roof. The windows would feature small paned bands of casement. A slightly curved wood connector under the gable is proposed to soften the gables. The applicant requests approval of a detached two-car garage with a small cottage on top of the garage. The materials proposed for the garage/cottage structure would be consistent with the materials selected for the primary housing unit. Unit One’s front walkway is curved out of the Canary Island Palm’s dripline to lessen any surface level impact on its root system. Unit Two Proposal Unit Two is proposed as a two-story Craftsman-style residence. The home would feature slightly low-pitched gabled/hipped rooflines with wide, unenclosed eave overhangs, exposed decorative roof rafter tails and braces under the gables. The partial wide entry porch would be supported by squared wood column. The exterior materials would consist of painted horizontal wood siding and stone wainscot at front of the building and chimney. The roof would be finished with charcoal colored composition shingle roofing material. A wood stained entry door with high window is proposed for this residence. The project includes a detached two-car garage with a small cottage on top of the garage. The material for the garage/cottage would be consistent with the main house materials. The front setback of Unit Two was increased approximately 2.5 feet to add clearance between the structure and the canopy and root system of the existing Coast Live Oak. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: x Coordinated Development Permit: The Coordinated Area Plan Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 19.10) requires that a coordinated development permit is issued prior to any alteration, demolition or construction of structures or site improvements located within the Plan Area. This permit shall only be issued if proposed development is consistent with the policies, programs and regulations of the Coordinated Area Plan and other applicable code requirements. Analysis1 The project would replace an office building that has been used for medical office purposes in recent history (since the early 1990s) including clinical offices and since 2005, used as the home of Simon Med Imaging. These office uses are not permitted in the DHS zoning district; they 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 6 existed prior to the adoption of the SOFA CAP I (2000) and were allowed to continue in the manner of existing use under the provisions outlined in Section 1.5 – Non-conforming Uses/Non-conforming Facilities of the DHS Development Standards. The applicant is seeking to develop the land in accordance with the permitted uses of the DHS zoning district, proposing the detached home with rear unit design prescribed in the residential prototypes for the DHS zoning district (reference SOFA CAP, p. 101-102). The respective home designs are in keeping with the DHS Design Guidelines, given compatible architecture that fits into the surrounding neighborhood aesthetic. The proposed homes would be consistent with many of the primary aspects outlined in the DHS Design Guidelines, including roof forms that are consistent in styling detail and materials, detached garages placed in the rear of the lots and preservation of existing protected trees and vegetation. The subdivision and development would reconnect the corner parcel with the existing residential land use pattern along Channing Avenue and Waverley Street, continuing an expanded range of available housing types and increase in the total number of housing units in the area. Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is across the street from the relatively recent DHS development at 865 Waverley Street and diagonal to the University Park development. The subject parcel is situated in a predominantly two family residential (R-2) zoning district block comprised of one and two-story early-twentieth-century and modern residential structures on dissimilarly shaped lots ranging from 5,000 sf (smallest) to 22,500 sf (largest) in size. The City planter strip along Channing Avenue is well stocked with street trees, including valley oak and Southern magnolia specimens, which help to visually define the streetscape and buffer the massing of the closely placed homes along this corridor. The existing parcel is bound by Channing Avenue and four mature Canary Island palm trees that line the northwest lot line. Waverley Street is less densely canopied with street trees of varying maturity planted sporadically, providing less screening of the deeper front yards found along this segment of the block. The proposed lots abut a one-story duplex (426 & 428 Channing Avenue) at the northeast lot line and a two-story single family residence (915 Waverley Street) at the southeast side lot line. The development was initially proposed with the lots fronting Channing Avenue, but later revised to the current orientation that is more consistent with the historic development pattern and to allow homes that would lessen the visual impact to both neighboring properties equitably. The proposed lot configurations result in relatively deep but narrow lots (42’-6” wide) that dictate the floor plan layouts and help restrict the front massing of the main residences at street-level. The primary residences are both proposed as two-story homes and are consistent with the existing two-story profiles along this segment of Waverley Street. The Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), featured on top of the detached garages on both lots are located in the right corners of the rear yards, would be partially hidden from street views along Waverley Street, in part due to the narrow lot dimensions and the width of the main residences that would obscure such views. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The primary and accessory structures on both lots are located outside of the required side and rear yard setbacks, preserving privacy and exposure to natural light for both the subject properties and neighboring lots. Overall, the project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the SOFA Plan Phase 1 Area and specific to the DHS zoning district. The one exception to this is the proposed front yard setbacks; these would be non-compliant if a strict application of the development standards were applied without regard to the intent of the standards. The City’s consulting architect reviewed the proposed project and his findings concluded the project conforms to the established DHS Design Guidelines. The City’s consulting architect’s complete analysis is provided in Attachment G. Compliance with SOFA 1 CAP Land Use Policies and Development Standards2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. Summary tables are provided as Attachments D & E. As the project is located within the SOFA 1 CAP, it is subject to compliance with the policies and development standards that were adopted as part of this plan. Chapter V of the SOFA 1 CAP includes a list of general standards for development within this area, as well as the specific standards of the DHS zone. These tables also summarize how the project complies or does not comply with these development standards. In summary, the project as proposed and conditioned, complies with all but one of the required development standards. As discussed above, the project includes a request for exception from the front setback standard set forth in the DHS zone. However, the exception is considered minor in conjunction with the SOFA 1 CAP and justified as described below. Exceptions from SOFA Plan Development Standards: Front Setbacks The proposed exception is a reduction to the required front setback for both new lots. The DHS development standards and design guidelines state that the minimum front yard setback should be set at 15 feet or per the block face average to maintain the existing setback pattern. As such, a strict interpretation of the language would require the subject properties to be set back approximately 29 feet 6 inches to match the block face average along Waverley Street, which would severely impact the development potential of each lot and would not meet the intent of the DHS zoning, which is to provide housing units. It would also cause the front yard setbacks to be comparably incongruent to the properties within the immediate vicinity. In reviewing the project, the City’s consulting architect determined the block pattern along Waverley Street is split by the large multifamily building (925 Waverley Street) centered on the block that is set back 23 feet 3 inches itself. To the right of the multifamily building there is a pattern of homes with front yard setbacks ranging from 33 to 36 feet. To the left of the multifamily building there is one residence (915 Waverley Street) which features the shallowest existing front setback on the block at 21 feet. The front yard setback of Unit One, which abuts 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca add SOFA - http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/25608 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 915 Waverley Street, is proposed at 21 feet and Unit Two at 20 feet 6 inches. These proposed front setbacks are in harmony with the two properties to right of the subject lots, as well as with the relatively short front setbacks of the residences near the intersection of Channing Avenue and Waverley Street. The City’s Arborist has reviewed project and provided no comments or conditions related to the front setbacks, though a request was made that the applicant agree to a long-term (e.g. three years) monitoring agreement to ensure the health of all existing trees on both lots to be maintained through construction and for a period extending post-construction. Exceptions from SOFA Plan Development Standards: Exceeding the Maximum Lot Size The site development regulations outlined in the development standards for the DHS zoning district specify 5,000 sf as the maximum lot size/site area. However, variations to the maximum lot size are permitted if, in the judgement of the Director of Planning & Community Environment, the lot configuration is consistent with the goals of SOFA Plan and is necessary to promote orderly lot patterns. The existing subject lot (APN: 120-17-043) belongs to the DHS zoning district but is located at the corner of a block primarily zoned for R-2 (Two Family Residence District) development. The proposed 5,312.5 sf lots would be comparatively similar in size to the abutting property at 915 Waverley Street (6,250 sf) and slightly larger than the 5,000 sf lots at 468 Channing Avenue and 904 Cowper Street, which are the smallest lots on the block. The additional lot area helps the project to meet the SOFA Plan goal for provision of additional housing. Architectural Style The DHS Design Guidelines provide an emphasis on new construction possessing coherent design that is compatible with the existing architectural styles and historical heritage of the surrounding neighborhood. Further, neighborhood character and aesthetic diversity is encouraged by limiting exterior designs from being repeated more than once every three lots on a block to prevent homogenous streetscapes. The City’s consulting architect worked with the project applicant to develop and refine the proposed English Cottage style of Unit One and Unit Two’s Craftsman style and determined both residential designs are compatible with (or similar to) the existing architectural or historic heritage of the SOFA area and Professorville neighborhood as noted under DHS Guideline 2.1 (a) and 2.1 (d). Unit One (interior lot facing Waverley Street) can be broadly categorized as referencing English Cottage style, while Unit Two (the corner lot) can be broadly categorized as referencing Craftsman style. Both styles would be compatible or similar to the existing architectural or historic heritage of the South of Forest area and nearby Professorville neighborhood, as noted under Guideline 2.1 (a) and 2.1(d). Environmental Review In March 2000, the City Council certified the SOFA Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Development of the subject site is addressed in this FEIR. As the project would not result in any new significant impacts that had not been previously addressed and mitigated, an City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Addendum to the FEIR has been prepared primarily to address additional site-specific information and provide clarification and confirmation on environmental issues and conclusions previously addressed in the FEIR. The two significant street trees (a Southern Magnolia & Valley Oak) adjacent to the project site, in the planter strip parallel to Channing Avenue, will be maintained and protected through construction using modified type II tree protection measures; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to these trees. A Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) report was prepared for staff by Page & Turnbull. This report found the property ineligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Places under any criterion, and therefore 400 Channing Avenue did not qualify as a historic resource for the purpose of review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Please see Attachment H for the complete HRE report, which provides additional background about the project vicinity. 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 March 24, 2017, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 23, 2017, which is 15 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments A resident at 915 Waverley Street submitted a comment to the Planning Department regarding the project. The applicant met with the neighbor and made significant design modifications. These changes generated additional comments from the neighbor, which are detailed in Attachment J. 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 Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575 phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 x Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) x Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) x Attachment D: Unit One (aka Parcel One) Project Data Table (DOCX) x Attachment E: Unit Two (aka Parcel Two) Project Data Table (DOCX) x Attachment F: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) x Attachment G: City Consulting Architect's Design Review (PDF) x Attachment H: Historic Resource Analysis (PDF) x Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) x Attachment J: Public Comments (PDF) Attachment I Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and 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 “400 Channing Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Project Plans (06.16.2017)” and dated 06/30/2017 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8237) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/13/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1545 Alma Street: Three Unit Multi-Family Project (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING/ QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1545 Alma Street [16PLN- 00283]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Addition to an Existing Single-Family Residence and 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 (Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 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 to city codes and policies; that report is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=56132 . A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment G. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 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 On March 2, 2017, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-58/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Select a unified architectural style The project has a unified architectural style in that the existing structure will be modified to match the proposed structures. Consider the removal of the balcony on Unit C The balcony was removed Locate common open space in other areas besides along Alma Street The common open space was moved away from Alma Street and distributed elsewhere including the rear of Unit C with access from the driveway. The colors should be reconsidered and focused on the entries The bright colored features have been removed and replaced with uniform colored plaster. Include details such as sections, construction details, neighboring properties, accurate location of neighboring oak tree The plans include the necessary corrections. Unit A front matching slope of the daylight plane and metal flue are awkward The roofline has been revised as shown on Sheet A2.2. Analysis1 The Board discussed several areas where the project could improve as summarized in the previous table. The following sections describe in detail the issues, the responses and staff’s analysis of whether the revisions are adequate. Unified Architectural Style Summary of Concern The project includes an addition to the existing single-family residence along Alma Street and the construction of two new units to the rear of the property. The addition matched the contemporary style of the two new units, however, the architectural style of the existing unit 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 was to remain Spanish. The previous iteration of the project had a disjointed architectural theme that did not relate well to the surrounding neighborhood. Summary of Response and Analysis The project has been revised to have a unified architectural style. The applicant eliminated the idea of using a mixed architectural vocabulary for the design of the project. The exterior of existing Unit A will be modified to match the materials/forms of the new Units B and C. The applicant has also removed the bright-colored monolithic elements and has instead created a consistent gable ended roof features with standing seam metal roofs throughout. A muted color is achieved using integral smooth-steel troweled plaster. The windows for the entire project have also been made consistent throughout by using dark bronze aluminum windows and wood entry/garage doors would be painted to match. December 2016 Proposal (Topos Architects) July 2017 Proposal (Topos Architects) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The revisions make the project more consistent with the Architectural Review Findings #1 and 2 by providing a unified and coherent design that is consistent with the Multi-family context- design findings. The revisions provide a harmonious sense of order and provide a rhythmic pattern with appropriate proportions and roof lines. The project is also consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Policy L-12 and L-48 to preserve the character and promote high quality design that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Unit C Balcony Summary of Concern The previous iteration included a balcony that faced the neighbor’s property. The neighbor provided testimony during the public hearing objecting to the proposed design. The Board agreed that the balcony was not in a good location and did not afford for adequate privacy. Summary of Response and Analysis In response to the Board’s comments, the balcony on Unit C has been completely removed so that views into the neighbor’s backyard are minimized. December 2016 Proposal (Topos Architects) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 December 2016 Proposal (Topos Architects) July 2017 Proposal (Topos Architects) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 July 2017 Proposal (Topos Architects) The revisions make the project more consistent with Finding #2. The project is more in character with its surroundings and enhances living conditions on the site and adjacent residential areas. Location of Common Open Space Summary of Concern Locate common open space in other areas besides along Alma Street because of concerns regarding noise from Alma Street and the railroad tracks. Summary of Response and Analysis In accordance with PAMC Section 18.13.040(e)(2) proposed useable open space shall be located protected from activities of commercial areas and adjacent public streets and shall provide noise buffering from surrounding uses where feasible. Based on the City’s work on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, the existing noise along Alma Street at this location is 70.4 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) dBA (a weighted average of noise over time). No noise buffering can be achieved given the constraints of allowed wall heights and no room to feasibly place a berm along the street. In response to the issue, the applicant moved the location of the common open space to an area in the rear of the property adjacent to Unit C with access from the common driveway. The revisions make the project consistent with the zoning code and with Findings #1 and #4. The revised open space layout allows for the functional use of the open space area with sufficient noise buffering. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Project Colors Summary of Concern The previous iteration included monolithic color elements over the entries. The colors seemed too bold to fit in with the surrounding development. Summary of Response and Analysis In keeping with the overall revised unified concept, the project removed the bright-colored monolithic forms over the entries and has instead created a consistent gable ended roof form with standing seam metal roofs throughout using one uniform pigmented plaster color. The windows for the entire project have also been made consistent throughout by using dark bronze aluminum windows and wood entry/garage doors painted to match. The revisions make the project consistent with Findings #1 and #2. The revised color palette provides a unified order for the project. The project’s color palette is harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. The project is consistent with Policy L-12 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Project Details Summary of Concern The previous iteration of the project left certain details out of the project plans. The Board wanted to see these details to support the project’s proposal. Summary of Response and Analysis The revised project included the appropriate building sections, accurate location of the neighbor’s oak tree, and more detailed outlines of the neighboring properties provide justification for the project and demonstrates the project’s potential impacts on the surrounding development. The project is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy L-48 in that it promotes high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with the surrounding development. Unit A Roof in Relation to Daylight Plane Summary of Concern The previous iteration demonstrated a roof pitch for the Unit A addition that had an abrupt roof pitch that matched the daylight plane. The Board wanted to see a design that was more integrated into a comprehensive design. Summary of Response and Analysis The overall redesign incorporates a minimalistic roof that is consistent with the other two units on the site. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Left: December 2016 Proposal / Right: June 2017 Proposal (Topos Architects) The revised project is consistent with Finding #2. As with the overall changes, this creates a unified project that is consistent with the neighboring properties. 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 six multi-family units in an urbanized area) 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 June 30, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 30, 2017, which is 13 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received between the last ARB 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, 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 Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: Performance Standards (DOCX) Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment F: Applicant Project Description (DOCX) Attachment G: March 2, 2017 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org R-1 R-1 (10000) RM-15 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: In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. The project is not located within a Coordinate Area Plan. 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 standing seam metal roofing that is consistent with the materials used within the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Colors are also muted. 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 existing house and the construction of two new units. The contemporary design is compatible with the surrounding development. There is a unified architectural style including consistent roof forms and fenestration details. 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. 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 in conformance with Zoning Code requirements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the site includes a uniformed contemporary architectural style. Roof forms are consistent and use quality materials that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The layout of the three-units has been carefully placed to provide privacy for each unit and to all the surrounding neighbors. Windows/balconies have been size and located so that they minimize views of surrounding neighbors’ private yards and windows. Landscaping features have also been implemented as to provide more privacy screening. Context-Based Findings for Multi-family (1) Massing and Building Facades: The project is consistent with the neighboring massing. The project proposes three detached units. The existing house will have a two-story addition at the rear, preserving the single-story character at the street. (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. The project is consistent with the daylight plane requirement and the rooflines have minimalistic forms. (3) Project Open Space The project provides a combination of private and common open space areas. The project maintains a setback along Alma Street. The project meets the privacy requirements. (4) Parking Design The project meets the parking requirements and provides both covered and uncovered spaces. The parking for the project has also been re-configured to make for a more functional and practical layout. The uncovered parking spaces are all configured to be adjacent to the corresponding covered parking space for each unit. The driveway design is existing, however, since the project is considered multi- family, the project is inconsistent with the width and distance to the property line and requires a Design Enhancement Exception for deviation from the standard. (5) Large (multi-acre) Sites The project is only 10,000 square feet in size and therefore, this 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 proposed contemporary architecture provides a uniform aesthetic. Landscaping is added to blend the project with the surroundings. Materials and colors of the project have been selected to provide a unifying minimalistic form that ties each of the units together as one development. These unifying elements can be seen in the gable roof forms that are evident in each of the three units and visible from Alma and the consistent use of similar materials for each unit. The project includes smooth plaster finish with an integrated color. 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 three units and provides the necessary area for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access. The project includes a bicycle locker for the units. 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 C 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 May 15, 2017 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. REQUIRED PARKING: All units shall be provided with a minimum of one covered parking space (10 foot by 20 foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet by 17.5 feet). 6. UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 7. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 8. DAYLIGHT PLANE: The daylight plane must clear the point where the wall plane intersects the top of the roof material. 9. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required where identified on Sheet L5 of the entitlement plan set. 10. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. 11. 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. 12. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $29,829. 13. 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. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL: 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. COST ESTIMATE: Provide a construction cost estimate for the proposed off-site improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT 17. Parcel Map shall be recorded with the County Recorder. 18. 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”. 19. 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 20. 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.” 21. 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 22. The bubblers or bio-retention 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 bio- retention areas should only treat the impervious areas. 23. 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.” 24. 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”. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Bio-retention 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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.” 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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 37. 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 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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. 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. 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” 44. 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 45. 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. 46. 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 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. 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 53. 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). 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. 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 57. 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, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6436http:/www.cityofpaloalto.org/civi cax/filebank/documents/6436) 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. 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. This criteria is not applicable as 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 those recommendations have been incorporated into the project to 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 Zoning Code and 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 number 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 E 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 5’8” feet 6 feet Street Side Yard 16 feet 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: 24.06 ft Unit B: 24.81 ft Unit C: 26.38 ft 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) Unit A: 1,520 sf Unit B: 981 sf Unit C: 983 sf 34.8% (3,484 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 50% (5,000 sf) 18% (1,824 sf) Unit A: 1,708 sf Unit B: 1,639 sf Unit C: 1,651 sf 49.9% (4,998 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 35% (3,500 sf) Not Applicable 36.6% (3,659 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 200 sf per unit Not Applicable Unit A: 338 sf Unit B: 439 sf Unit C: 537 sf Minimum Common Open Space 100 sf per unit Not Applicable Unit A: 200 sf Unit B: 276 sf Unit C: 362 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit Not Applicable Unit A: 138 sf Unit B: 163 sf Unit C: 175 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 Project Address: 1545 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 May 26, 2017 Planning Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Written Project Description: Scope of work to be done… The proposed project is the conversion of an existing single-family residence into a three-unit condominium. The existing single-family residence will remain but will be modified to meet the parking requirements, new 2nd story addition. The existing unit will also be modified to match the aesthetics of the two new units. The two other units will be will be newly constructed detached two-story single-family residences. The existing and proposed uses… The existing home on the site is a single-family residence. The proposed project will be a 3-unit condominium consisting of detached single-family homes with shared common spaces. The RM-15 zoning of the property requires that 3 units be erected on the property but does not allow them to be subdivided into a Village Residential development so a condo map has to be applied. An explanation of the design concept… The existing single-family residence will be modified to match the two new units to create a unified architectural style. The elements consist of gabled standing seam metal roofing, off- white pigmented plaster walls, and dark bronze windows and doors. The materials are more contemporary in nature but uses more traditional forms. On the more technical side of the design concept, due to the constraints of the site and zoning, the only project that is allowed to be built on this site is a 3-unit condominium. Here are the three main points that restrict this project to these parameters: 1. Under RM-15 zoning, a single-family or a two-family unit is not permitted on this site since the lot is over the 8,500 sf maximum. The site is 10,000 sf. Therefore, the only allowable use for this particular site is a multiple-family dwelling. 2. The proposed project must have 3 units since RM-15 zoning has a max density of 15 units per acre which is equivalent to a 2,904 sf minimum lot size for each unit. This only allows for 3 units to fit in the 10,000 sf lot size. 3. The proposed project can only be a condominium since it does not meet the Village Residential requirement to have a maximum density of 12 units per acre which is equivalent to a 3,630 sf minimum lot size. With 3 units on the site, the max lot area that can be achieved for each unit would be 3,333 sf. Relationship to existing conditions on site… The layout of the three-units have been carefully placed to provide privacy for each unit and to all of the surrounding neighbors. Windows/balconies have been size and located so that they minimize views of surrounding neighbors private yards and windows. Landscaping features have also been implemented as to provide more privacy screening. Materials, colors, and construction methods to be used… Materials and colors of the project have been selected to provide a unifying minimalistic form that ties each of the units together as one development. These unifying elements can be seen in the gable roof forms that are evident in each of the 3 unit and visible from Alma and the consistent use of similar materials for each unit. Construction methods of the project are to follow the most recent practices and will be focused on preserving the existing environment as much as possible as well as limiting impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Summary of project’s response to ARB comments… The project has been revised to have a unified architectural style. The exterior of existing Unit A will be modified to match the materials/forms of units B and C. We have parted ways with the idea of using a mixed architectural vocabulary for the design of the project. We have also removed the bright-colored monolithic forms and have instead created a consistent gable ended roof form with standing seam metal roofs throughout using one uniform pigmented plaster color. The windows for the entire project have also been made consistent throughout by using dark bronze aluminum windows and wood entry/garage doors painted to match. The entries for each of the units have a similar shed roof supported by PSL support beams but the overall forms vary slightly from unit to unit. The shed roof provides for a consistency throughout yet the difference in form creates a sense of individuality for each unit. The parking for the project has also been re-configured to make for a more functional and practical layout. The uncovered parking spaces are all configured to be adjacent to the corresponding covered parking space for each unit. Also, the awkward parallel parking has been removed for the required parking spaces. In response to the neighbor’s comments, the balcony on Unit C has been completely removed so that views into their backyard are minimized. In addition, the façade that faces into the neighbor’s back yard has been articulated to break up the massing; there is no longer a huge, bright red wall as their backdrop and it is further mitigated by vegetation as noted in the schematic landscape plans. 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 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 “6-20-17 Submittal 1545 Alma” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8199) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/13/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 480 Lytton Avenue: Facade Modifications (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 480 Lytton Avenue [17PLN-00052]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Exterior Modifications to an Existing 6,222 Square Foot Commercial Building, Including a new Façade, Roof, Replacement of all Windows, Landscaping, new Trash Enclosure, and Improvements to the Existing Parking Lot. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CD-C(P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at APetersen@m-group.us 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 application is a request for architectural review of proposed exterior modifications to an existing building. The exterior alterations would modernize the existing building and create a new identity for the site. The project also includes providing a new covered trash enclosure located at the southeastern property corner, relocating the HVAC equipment to an enclosure at the ground level, upgrading the parking area by paving the drive aisle and installing permeable pavers under the stalls for storm water treatment, and complying with the Tier 1 Green Building Standards. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The project underwent preliminary review from the ARB on November 17, 2016 (staff report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54711). The ARB was generally supportive of the project, but recommended alterations to improve the pedestrian friendliness of the site, reduce the height of the clerestory window, address the relationship of the building to the area, and improve the entrance and potential entrances to the building along Lytton Avenue. The applicant has responded to these comments by: Adding more pedestrian oriented landscaping in pots and bicycle rack. Eliminating the built-in planter at the corner in favor of an array of large architectural pots allowing for future flexibility for potential building access; Reducing the clerestory and roof element approximately 18-inches. The applicant’s project description and project plans in attachments B and H, respectively, further describe the alterations. The project site consists of two legal parcels that will be merged as part of this project to ensure required parking is provided on the same parcel as the building. Background Project Information Owner: Thoits Bros. Inc. Architect: Patrick Duron and Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Representative: Patrick Duron and Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 480 & 482 Lytton Avenue and adjacent unaddressed parking lot Neighborhood: Downtown North Lot Dimensions & Area: 480 & 482 Lytton Avenue (APN 120-15-011) is 7,088 square feet (sf) & the adjacent unaddressed parking lot (APN 120-15-012) is 3,375 sf The total lot area for the project is 10,463 sf Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, there are street trees on Lytton Avenue and Cowper Street. Historic Resource(s): The site has not been identified as an historic resource. There are other nearby historic resources, but this project is not expected to impact these other structures. Existing Improvement(s): 6,222 square feet, 2 stories, 24-feet to top of parapet; built in 1961 Existing Land Use(s): Professional Offices Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northeast: CD-C (P) zoning district (commercial land uses) Northwest: CD-C (P) and RM-30 zoning districts (retail and multi- City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 family residential land uses) Southeast: CD-C (P) zoning district (commercial land uses) Southwest: CD-C (P) zoning district (commercial and residential land uses) Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps – may not represent current conditions on the property Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Downtown Commercial – Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (CD-C (P)) Comp. Plan Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Yes 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 Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary project reviewed by the ARB at the November 17, 2016 hearing. Information concerning that project can be found at the following links: Staff Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54711 Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55214 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-52/ Project Description The applicant proposes to create a new identity for the building at 480 Lytton Avenue by remodeling the existing building. The applicant proposes five steps to do this: 1) Develop a stronger façade for the Lytton Avenue elevation with an aluminum clad frame and aluminum storefront windows and doors; 2) Replace all existing windows with translucent laminated glazing on the second floor and aluminum framed, dual-glazed, windows on the first floor; 3) Replace the gravel roof with a metal standing seam roof and clerestory windows; 4) Demolish all rooftop AC units and replace them with a new condensing unit at grade on the southwest corner of the site; and 5) Create landscape pockets around the parking lot and a raised planter along all street facing façades; the project will also include a new row of trees along the southern lot line throughout the parking lot. All entrances are centrally located, providing an efficient layout for the future tenants. Clerestory windows bring natural light into the interior, and the second story glazing will have full height glazed fins spaced on a random modular layout to provide solar shading of the new glass band. The applicant proposes to retain majority of the square footage of the existing building. Table 1 below conveys the changes in square foot for the project. Table 1 Existing Square Footage Proposed Square Footage Difference First Floor 3,092 sf 3,061 sf - 31 sf Second Floor 3,130 sf 2,978 sf - 252 sf City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Other 165 sf Total 6,222 sf 6,204 sf - 18 sf While reducing the building by 18 sf, the overall footprint would remain similar; only a small portion of the first-floor entry would be removed. The area removed from the second floor constitutes an opening from the second floor to the first floor. The project also includes a new, covered, trash and recycling enclosure that would add 116 sf and an HVAC enclosure that would add 49 sf to the building for a total of 165 sf. The enclosure would be located in the southeastern corner of the property replacing an existing, uncovered trash and recycling facility. The site provides 16 non-conforming parking spaces and contributes to the City’s parking assessment fund. The lot would be restriped to have more conforming sized spaces, but the number of parking spaces would remain unchanged. Access to the site will remain unchanged, but the applicant proposes a new driveway apron. The applicant also proposes a parcel merger to combine the subject sites into one lot. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated: 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 C. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is surrounded by a mixture of uses and development patterns. Large scale development exists to the northeast of the site in the form of a stucco and glass three story office building. Similar style development exists to the southeast of the site, in the form of a two story office building comprised of stucco, brick and glass. Single story commercial uses occur to the immediate northwest of the site, and two story multi-family residential uses southwest and west of the site. 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 6 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Community Commercial. The purpose of this land use is for larger shopping districts that have wider variety goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail services such as offices and banks. The project consists of a remodel to an existing building utilized for office purposes. While the Comprehensive Plan encourages larger scale commercial development on the site, the proposed project would retain the existing use while proposing alterations to an existing building. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because Policy L-23 states “maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City.” A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment C. 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 in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Parking and Circulation The project is in the Downtown Assessment parking district that has a parking standard of one space per 250 square feet. For new construction, this requirement would mandate that the site provide 25 parking spaces. The site provides 16 non-conforming parking spaces that includes one accessible parking stall. The proposed project consists of a remodel to an existing building that would not increase the square footage of the structure. Therefore, the project does not increase the non-conformity of the parking condition. Further, the project would increase the dimensions of seven of the 16 parking spaces, making them conforming to current stall sizes. As a result of this proposal, the parking conditions on-site would be improved. Consistency with Application Findings The project is subject to Architectural Review findings and Context-Based Design Criteria found in Attachment C and Performance Standards contained in Attachment E. The project is 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 consistent with the Findings, Criteria and Performance Standards outlined the corresponding attachments. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(a) (Existing Facilities). The project consists of a proposal to remodel an existing office building by constructing exterior alterations on a previously disturbed site in an urbanized area. The proposed exemption allows for exterior modifications to existing facilities in an urbanized area. Therefore, the project is consistent with the subject exemption. 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 June 30, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 30, 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. 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 ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Adam Petersen, Senior Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 106 (650) 329-2575 apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX) Attachment F: November 17, 2016 ARB Preliminary Review Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) Attachment G: November 17, 2016 ARB Excerpt Minutes (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment A ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 480 Lytton Avenue 17PLN-00052 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 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 proposed project is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan, including the following goals and policies: Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City’s residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts. Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Policy L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. 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 or solid walls at street level; and include human- scale details and massing. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Policy T-21: Support the use of Downtown alleyways for pedestrian- and bicycle-only use. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record. The project is consistent with the Downtown Urban Design plan. The project respects the height and visual continuity of buildings along Lytton and Cowper, while having a street level façade with a plate height of 12-feet which reflects a human scale. The clerestory window on the roof reflects an eclectic mix of a building caps, and the materials consisting of porcelain tile, translucent laminated glazed windows and galvanized metal are rich and permanent in nature. Ground floor windows are comprised of a clear dual glazed design that permits pedestrian visibility to the interior of the project. The front and rear entries are recessed under a projection from the second floor, providing a protected pedestrian standing area out of the sidewalk flow. The project is not subject to any coordinated area plans. 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 has a unified and coherent design and creates an internal sense of order in that each floor of the building provides a logical layout for potential tenants. Each floor has a defined sense of entry with spaces for individual offices. Internal spaces are provided with direct access and circulation routes, and amenities like kitchen spaces for the office uses. The project is designed to preserve, respect and integrate natural features. Natural features for this project consist of street trees along Lytton Avenue and Cowper Street. The project will preserve trees on these streets. The building respects these trees by maintaining adequate space. The project provides a harmonious transition in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses because its height is consistent with the nearby residential zoning district and the building envelope is similar to other structures along Lytton Avenue and Cowper Street. The project enhances the living conditions for those in nearby residential because it renovates an existing building with a dated design with a new façade comprised of high quality materials and architecture. Pursuant to PAMC 18.18.110(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project will provide short term and long term bicycle parking. The project has a single driveway on Lytton and Cowper, thus reducing conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. Color and textured pavement is used in the entry ways of the building to help distinguish the pedestrian environment. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building is located along the street frontages of Lytton and Cowper, provides windows for transparent uses, and provides bicycle parking and entry ways for cyclists and pedestrians, respectively 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The project complies with the setback requirements of the Downtown Commercial (CD) zone, and clerestory window, fenestrations, and setback ground floor reduces the massing of the structure. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The proposed project does not abut lower scale residential development. Further, the height of the building complies with the height limit of the adjacent residential zone. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site The project provides public open spaces along the street facing facades of the building and the entry areas as well. The project also provides internal open spaces for office tenants. Both spaces are integrated into the design of the building and enhance the visitors and tenants experience. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The proposed design accommodates parking and increases the conformity of the parking onsite by providing seven conforming sized vehicle stalls where all previous stalls were nonconforming. Parking is screened from public view thereby not detracting from the pedestrian environment. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding is not applicable to the project because the site is not over one acre. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 1). 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 design is of high aesthetic quality, with high quality materials that integrated into the building, with appropriate textures, colors, and details. The project includes high quality materials represented by the clear tempered glass, strong aluminum frames, translucent laminated glazing on the windows and porcelain tile framing the windows. The clerestory windows on the roof would bring light to the interior and the standing seam metal roof would have a weathered zinc finish. This finish matches and compliments the translucent glazing finish on the second floor and the porcelain tile surround the windows. Overall, the design is modern but muted so as to be compatible with the surrounding buildings. 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 design is functional allowing for ease and safety of pedestrians and cyclists traffic. The project includes short term parking at the building entrance and long term bike parking in an easily accessible space onsite. The project is functional for pedestrians because the one way driveways minimize pedestrian vehicle conflicts and the site includes paved features identifying pedestrian areas. The internal configuration and layout supports the building’s operations and the design of the large glass windows along the street frontages allows for a variety of uses to occupy the space and activate the 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 will provide a variety of native?? drought-tolerant planting. The selected varieties of trees would provide a habitat for wildlife as a part of a bigger neighborhood and community wide system. The project would enhance the street tree environment by replacing an existing camphor tree with a new black oak tree and installing new grates for existing street trees. These trees soften the building edge and enhance the pedestrian environment by sheltering the sidewalk from the street. Additional trees are provided in the parking lot to minimize the heat island effect from the asphalt and along the periphery of the parking lot to conceal views of it from the streets. Movable planter pots are located in front of the building windows on the street level. This feature softens the building’s edge along the street and serves as a buffer between the building and the sidewalk. Each of these proposed features creates a desirable habitat for plants 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. In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 1. Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 480 Lytton Avenue, 17PLN-0002 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Setbacks Front Yard None Required 0 ft 0 ft Rear Yard None Required 70 ft 70 ft Interior Side Yard None Required 12 ft 7 in 12 ft 7 in Street Side Yard None Required 0 ft 0 ft Special Setback Pursuant to Code Section 20.08 N/A N/A Minimum street setback for sites sharing a common block face with any abutting residential zone district (Note 4) N/A N/A Minimum yard (ft) for lot lines abutting or opposite residential zone districts 10 feet (Note 1) N/A N/A Maximum Site Coverage None Required 3,092 sf 3,226 sf Maximum Height 35 ft within 150 ft of an abutting residential zone district (Note 3) Unknown 28 ft 5 in Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 (7,088 sf) (Note 5) 6,222 sf 6,204 sf Maximum Size of New Non- Residential Construction or Expansion Projects 25,000 sf of gross floor area or 15,000 sf above the existing floor area, whichever is greater, provided the floor area limits set forth elsewhere in this chapter are not exceeded N/A 6,204 sf project conforms Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Initial Height at side or rear lot line (Note 2) N/A 25 ft. Slope (Note 2) N/A 29-degrees Page 2 of 2 Notes 1) The yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding area required for site access. 2) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the residential zone abutting the site line in question. 3) The maximum height within 150 feet of any abutting residential zone district shall not exceed the height limit of the abutting residential district. 4) The minimum street setback shall be equal to the residentially zoned setback for 150 feet from the abutting single-family or multiple family development. 5) FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts. 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed-use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District Type Required Existing Proposed Conforms? Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 2 All uses except residential: 1 space per 250 sf 25 spaces 16 spaces 16 spaces Yes* Bicycle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 2 All uses except residential: 1 space per 2,500 sf 40% Long Term (LT) 60% Short Term (ST) 2 spaces 1 LT 1 ST Unknown 1 Long Term 1 Short Term Yes Loading Space The project is not required to provide a loading space because it is less than 9,999 sf. Office projects greater than 10,000 sf are required to provide loading spaces. * The proposed parking is a nonconforming condition, consisting of 16 legal nonconforming parking spaces. The project would improve the conformity of the site by bringing the size of seven parking spaces into conformance with the Zoning Code. Nine spaces would remain nonconforming. Those spaces are not required to be brought into conformance because this project is a remodel and does not increase the square footage of the building and therefore the nonconformity of the parking. Performance Criteria 18.23 480 Lytton Avenue 16PLN-00257 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 provides a trash enclosure that meets the size requirements of Palo Alto Zero Waste. It upgrades an existing trash area by providing a formal enclosure which is designed to be consistent with the proposed building. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The project photometric plan included on Sheet L7 demonstrates that light will not spill off the site onto neighboring properties. 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 does not propose late night uses or activities. Future late night uses or activities would be subject to requirements when proposed. 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 has concealed all mechanical equipment in an enclosed equipment cabinet. The proposed landscaping along the perimeter of the site is integrated into project design by serving as a buffer between the parking lot and the street. 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 proposes ground mounted HVAC equipment inside a proposed enclosure. Cut-sheets of the proposed HVAC equipment indicate that it will conform to the City’s noise requirements by emitting less than eight decibels above ambient at the adjacent commercial property lines. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. Parking is concealed from view. The existing parking on-site consists of a legal non- conforming condition. The project improves the parking by providing more stalls that meet the City’s size requirements. Further, the parking will remain in its existing location. 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 project proposes bicycle parking on-site for future uses and will improve vehicular and pedestrian access through new driveway aprons in existing curb cuts. Further, improvements to the site will be required to conform to ADA requirements. Therefore, the project will enhance the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. The project will not produce odors or toxic air contaminants because it consists of an office use. Any mechanical equipment will conform to manufacturer requirements designed to protect human health. 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. The project will not involve the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials because the project consists of an office remodel and occupation of the structure by an office use which is not associated with hazardous materials. 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 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7300) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/17/2016 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 480 Lytton Avenue: Preliminary Review for Renovation Project Title: 480 Lytton Avenue [16PLN-00257]: Preliminary Review for Proposed Exterior Modifications to an Existing 6,222 Square Foot Building, Including Changes to the Parking Lot Design and Other Site Improvements. Environmental Assessment: This Application is Not a Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial District with Community Sub-District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (CD-C(P)) From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide comments. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: Thoits Bros. Inc. Architect: Patrick Duron and Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Representative: Patrick Duron and Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 480 & 482 Lytton Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown/University Avenue Parking Assessment District Lot Dimensions & Area: 112.5' x 93'. Two parcels totaling a lot area of 10,462.5 5 Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: There are protected street trees in the right-of-way, but not onsite. Historic Resource(s): The subject property is not listed on any historic resource surveys. There are, however, historic resources near the project site, including: 360 Cowper & 489-499 Lytton Avenue; APN 120-14-061; Category 4 (Palo Alto’s First Hospital). Historic resources are located to the southwest of the project site at: 405 Kipling Street; APN 120-15-010; Category 4 411 Kipling Street; APN 120-15-023; Category 4 421-423 Kipling Street; APN 120-15-022; Category 3. Existing Improvement(s): 6,222 sf, 2 stories, 24-feet at parapet, Originally built in 1961 Existing Land Use(s): Professional Offices Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northeast: CD-C (P) (commercial land uses) Northwest: CD-C (P) and RM-30 (retail and multi-family land uses) West: RM-30 (residential land use) Southeast: CD-C (P) (commercial land uses) Southwest: CD-C (P) (commercial and residential land uses) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Downtown Commercial – Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (CD-C (P)) Comp. Plan Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Yes 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 Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 ARB: None Project Description The applicant proposes to renovate the building at 480 Lytton Avenue in the following manner: 1) Develop a stronger façade for the Lytton Avenue elevation with an aluminum clad frame and aluminum storefront windows and doors 2) Replace all existing windows with band of aluminum framed, dual-glazed, high- performance windows 3) Replace the gravel roof with a metal standing seam roof and clerestory windows 4) Demolish all rooftop AC units and replace them with a new condensing unit at grade on the southwest corner of the site; the condensing unit is proposed to be enclosed and full noise attenuation plans will be submitted with a formal application. 5) Create landscape pockets around the parking lot and a raised planter along all street facing façades; the project will also include a new tree screen on the southern lot line throughout the parking lot. All entrances are centrally located, providing an efficient layout for the future tenants. Clerestory windows bring natural light into the interior, and the second story glazing will have full height glazed fins spaced on a random modular layout to provide solar shading of the new glass band. The applicant proposes four design options to achieve these goals. The overall square footage for the building would be reduced from the existing building. The existing building is 6,222 square feet, and the proposed building is 5,899 square feet. The project also includes a new, covered, trash and recycling enclosure. The facility is proposed to be located at the southeastern corner of the property where there is an existing, uncovered trash and recycling facility. The site provides 16 parking spaces with some spaces on a separate parcel, with one accessible parking stall. The proposed lot configuration yields 16 parking spaces with a total of seven conforming stalls and nine non-conforming stalls with one accessible stall. All current stalls are non-conforming. The project would bring seven non-conforming stalls adjacent to the building into conformance with code requirements. The nine non-conforming stalls would remain the same size. The project will provide one short-term bicycle parking space, located along Lytton Avenue and one long-term bicycle locker adjacent to the HVAC enclosure at the rear of the building. Access to the site will remain unchanged, but the applicant proposes a new driveway apron. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated: 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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 C. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to: Scale and mass Transitions in scale to adjacent properties Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context Pedestrian-orientation and design Access to the site Consideration to any applicable policy documents (Background Section) Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any Comprehensive Plan Conformance The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Regional/Community Commercial. The purpose of this land use is for larger shopping districts that have wider variety goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail services such as offices and banks. Zoning Compliance The Palo Alto Municipal Code zones the site Commercial Downtown – Community with the Pedestrian Shopping combining district (CD-C(P)). The CD downtown commercial district is intended to be a comprehensive zoning district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The CD City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 commercial downtown district is specifically created to promote the following objectives in the downtown area of Palo Alto: (1) control the rate and size of commercial development; (2) preserve and promote ground-floor retail uses; (3) enhance pedestrian activity; (4) create harmonious transitions from the commercial areas to adjacent residential areas; and (5) where applied in conjunction with Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, preserve historic buildings. Proposed Uses The project does not propose any new uses at this time. Building Height The proposed site is within 150-feet from properties zoned RM-30, which is a residential zone. The proximity to residential zones affects development standards related to height. The CD-C district states the maximum height in these cases shall not exceed the height limit of the abutting residential district, which is 35 feet. The project proposes a maximum height of approximately 32 feet which is consistent with these standards. Setbacks PAMC Chapter 18.18 states that there are no setbacks in the CD-C zone. The building is setback five-feet along Lytton Avenue and six-feet along Cowper Street while the proposed planters are located at the property lines. This design maintains the project’s original placement on the site, and is therefore consistent with the Zoning Code as further described in Attachment D. Floor Area Ratio Based on the lot size, and the allowable FAR, the maximum gross floor area for the site is 7,056 sf. The project proposes to reduce the floor area of the building from 6,222 sf. to 5,899 sf. The proposed reduction produces an FAR of 0.83:1, which complies with City’s standards. Parking and Circulation The project is located in the Downtown Palo Alto Parking Assessment District. The project is parked at a single standard of one space per 250 sf. Table 1 conveys the parking requirements for the project: Table 1 Parking Requirement Summary – Option A and Option B Requirement Area Proposed Required Parking Bicycle Parking Requirement Bicycle Parking Required Downtown Requirement 1 space per 250 sf 5,899 24 spaces 1 per 2,500 sf 40% Long Term 60% Short 1 Long Term 1 Short Term City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Term Parking Provided Parking on-site and on an adjacent site 16 spaces 1 Long Term 1 Short Term Parking Covered in Assessment District 4 spaces Deficit 4 spaces (legal non- conforming) 0 The Downtown Parking Assessment District notes that the project site contains 20 parking spaces and participates in the District for the remaining four spaces. However, site visits indicate that the site has 16 spaces with 4 additional spaces provided by the Parking Assessment District. This leaves the site 4 spaces short of current standards. However, in conformance with PAMC Section 18.70.090, noncomplying facility that undergo maintenance and repair shall be permitted to remain as such, provided such alterations do not increase the degree of noncompliance. Parts of the parking lot design currently provide nonconforming parking spaces. These spaces can remain as nonconforming under post project conditions because the project is not making alterations that would increase or decrease the parking required or provided on the site. New electric vehicle ADA design requirements may affect parking lot design if the applicant is required to install EV chargers in 2017. Trash Enclosure The location of the proposed trash enclosure is an issue for the project. The project is comprised of two parcels, with the building and half of the parking located on parcel, and the trash enclosure and the other half of the parking located on the other parcel. The project may be required to apply for a lot merger or record a reciprocal access agreement across the parcels to access the building, parking and trash enclosure. Pedestrian Overlay The project is located in a pedestrian overlay zone. The overlay zone requires that the project provide 262.5 sf of pedestrian oriented square footage. The project plans do not provide this area. Staff requests the ARB’s evaluation of pedestrian oriented enhancements for the site. Urban Forestry The project will require a custom sidewalk construction to accommodate engineered soil under the sidewalk to ensure tree health. The sidewalk is now loaded with the new cell tower underground lines and fake mailbox covers. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Architectural Review Findings, Standards and Criteria The project is subject to Architectural Review findings as well as Performance Standards and Context-Based Design Criteria, contained in Attachments C, E and F respectively. Staff requests the ARB’s evaluation of the project relative to compatibility with the immediate environment of the site. Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Adam Petersen, Senior Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5643 x 106 (650) 329-2575 apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX) Attachment F: Context Based Design Criteria (DOCX) Attachment G: Historic Architectural Evaluation (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Robert Gooyer, Vice Chair Alexander Lew, Board Members Peter Baltay, Wynne Furth, Kyu Kim Absent: 4. 480 Lytton Avenue [16PLN-00257]: Prescreening for an Architectural Review Application for Proposed Exterior Modifications to an Existing 6,222 Square Foot Building, Including Changes to the Parking Lot Design and Other Site Improvements. This Application is not a Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. For additional information contact Adam Petersen at APetersen@m-group.us. Chair Gooyer: The next item on the agenda is 480 Lytton Avenue, prescreening for an Architectural Review application for proposed exterior modifications to an existing 6,222-square-foot building including changes to the parking lot design and other site improvements. This application is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff. Adam Petersen: Good morning, Chair Gooyer, members of the Architectural Review Board. I'm Adam Petersen from the Planning and Community Environment Department. I'm here today to present a preliminary review for 480 Lytton Avenue. This project essentially consists of a remodel and exterior alterations to the building at 480 Lytton. It seeks to, number one, develop a stronger façade along Lytton Avenue; number two, replace all the existing windows with band aluminum-frame windows; number three, replace the gravel roof with a standing seam metal roof and clerestory windows; number four, it seeks to create landscape pockets around the parking lot and also construct parking lot improvements. This is a preliminary review of the project, and staff is requesting your comments related to the proposed design. These next slides will take you through the existing site and sort of the site surroundings. This is a view of the project site. This is the building sort of in the middle of the picture. It's a brick building with street trees around it. It's looking south from the corner of Lytton and Cowper Avenue. This is the back side of the building with the existing parking lot. It's essentially a one-way parking lot. You enter from Lytton Avenue, and then you exit along Cowper. Just the back side of the building here. This is a view down Lytton Avenue. This is the existing building on the right-hand side. This is some of the context of what you see down the left-hand side. This is looking to the east. This is the proposed site plan for the project. As you can see, there's going to be some driveway improvements. You enter the site from Lytton Avenue, drive into the parking lot. The site currently has 16 parking spaces, and the applicant is retaining those parking spaces. They're increasing the conformity. Right now, the site does not have conforming parking to the standards, but they are proposing the stalls along the building will be conforming to City standards. Right now, there's no trash enclosure on the site. There's just two bins. The applicant is proposing a trash enclosure and also some enclosures for the HVAC equipment. This is the proposed renderings for the site. In the top rendering, we have the view along Lytton Avenue here. It's sort of the long elevation. On the left-hand side, we see the view along Cowper of the building. The top, we have the clerestory windows. The bottom side shows the view of ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: November 17, 2016 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 the parking lot and sort of the back side of the building. The applicant has proposed design options for the Board to consider. These are just various takes on what they're looking at. The primary project concerns or the primary role of the Board is to evaluate the project relative to the Architectural Review findings. In particular, consider the project's response to historic buildings in the area. Also consider the project as it relates to the Context Based Design Criteria and performance criteria and also the pedestrian-oriented enhancements. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board review the project, provide comments to the applicant, and continue the project to a date uncertain. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Would the applicant like to … Good morning, Ken. You know the routine. You've got 10 minutes. Ken Hayes: Good morning. Let me just make sure this works. Good morning, members of the Board. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'm joined this morning by my client, Hilary Strain, from Wing VC. The project, staff did a great job explaining it. In terms of location, it's on the corner of Cowper and Lytton Avenue, located there. It looks like this is distorted. It's in the CD-C (P) zoning district. It's completely surrounded by that district. Across the street diagonally is an RM-30 district, and that imposes a 35-foot height limit on the building. Not an issue in this regard because we're dealing with an existing building. The views of the building. The upper left is the parking lot side from Cowper. It shows the—the entry to the building is actually on that parking lot side. It's a stucco building, kind of mid-century modern, defined horizontal roofline. The access to the parking lot from Lytton is located here, sort of on the west side of the property. This side of the building is all poured-in-place concrete while the rest of the building is wood frame. It kind of has this pattern of sheer walls and openings, a really simple or simply constructed building. The project statement is to renovate the existing mid- century building for a modern office tenant, Wing VC. They have needs for flexibility, energy efficiency, daylighting. They wanted to have an iconic image, just sort of upgrade the image of the building, embrace sustainability design practices and contribute to the living and working environment in Downtown Palo Alto that we so much love. Existing site plan. Very limited landscaping, no landscaping on this entire side. Here there's a wood fence and an office building. Cars enter here, through the parking lot, one-way diagonal spaces, and exit out onto Cowper. The existing entry, like I said, is located there. We're proposing—we'll have a landscape architect involved. This is just conceptual. We want to get landscaping in the parking lot, because we want to look at green trees and foliage from the second floor. We would try to get an abundance of trees. As staff pointed out, a new trash enclosure here where none exists today. Get the mechanical units off the roof, and put them down in an enclosure on the ground so they don’t have vibration issues. It'll be probably a VRF-type system, very highly efficient. Cars will come in the same way. We'll have an entrance—we're actually talking about adding benches. You can't quite see them; they're highlighted. A bench here with new landscaping; benches along Lytton Avenue with new landscaping. It says Kipling there; that is Lytton. We'll actually have an entrance from Lytton and an entrance from the parking lot that will come into a new two-story space that will start to integrate the building on the interior. The solar diagram here on the left kind of gives you an idea. The southwestern façade facing Lytton Avenue is going to have a lot of solar (inaudible). We want to work with a vocabulary that's modern and provides for sunshading techniques, a deep overhang, very clean lines, a very defined base and body to the building, lots of glass. Like I said, we want to really look into the canopy of trees that we both plant and that are there at the corner of Cowper and Lytton. We're not really pursuing these three any long. We're hoping we can get your support today on the direction that we like. We did start off with something that didn't modify a whole lot. Worked with the sheer walls, put a new roof on the building and new glass. We moved to some other ideas, more along the lines of the imagery we're beginning to develop and work with. This was going to be—the upper right would highlight the corner and sort of the north side of the building and begin to kind of lift up and create more daylighting opportunities. In the end, we really felt we didn't want to be that dramatic, kind of like lie low behind the existing canopy of trees and use clerestory techniques to bring light into the building instead of having the corner pop up. We're focused now on this option here. This is the streetscape, the BofA building there on the corner. We think the clarity of our concept, the simplicity and boldness of the imagery that we're pursuing will be strong relative to this brutalist building next door. I think that compatibility will work. The delicacy of the building, the detail that we're adding to it, sort of the fine, light sort of line work, the sloped roof is a way to begin to pull the building towards the historic homes City of Palo Alto Page 3 that are on Lytton. I'm sorry, on Kipling, located here. We think it's kind of a nice bridge between the two environments. It is an existing building as well in terms of the overall mass. There it is. That's what we're proposing. The roof's going up about 2 feet, not including the clerestory window behind. The idea is we have a strong base, differentiate that with some solid material and some punch-outs, keeping the existing sheer walls, creating all kinds of planter around the building. These are the benches that we were talking about, could be placed on those planter walls. Open up the corner with lots of glass to look out into the landscaping. This is the entrance from Lytton. The deep overhang here would be metal cladding. We're employing glass fins in kind of a seemingly random way, so it's not a regular pattern but random, to kind of relate to the organic nature of the trees. You'll sort of look through the trees and see this kind of random shadow pattern happening behind. This is the side that faces the BofA building. Give you an idea, we're going to wrap the corner with the glass. It shows the raised planter around the perimeter. Anybody could sit anywhere on the planter, but we're going to provide some wood benches on top of that, that would kind of float. You can see the sloped roof. Section through the building, letting the light through. This is the two-story space that you'll walk into from the parking lot side here or the Lytton Avenue side here. The idea there is to try to integrate this office space. They'll have conference facilities on the ground floor. They'll have more of their workspaces upstairs, and they really want to sort of flood it with light. Just a diagram of the plan. It shows you—this area will be the hole in the floor. We'll have the vertical circulation located there. We're actually going to have to add another stair. There was some ambiguity in 1021.2. We thought we could negotiate away one of the stairs, but this will be under the new Building Code, and they've clarified what we thought was an ambiguity. We will have another stair, so we need to add a stair to this. Most likely it will be over here and handled a similar way as to what the existing stair does. This yellow area is the area under the clerestory windows and the vault above. That'll be all the open office area. It's how we see it. We would take the patterning of windows and sunshades all the way around the building to give it some continuity. We understand that you don't necessarily need it all the way around the building. I think it will give the building a more complete look. This will help on this side in terms of early morning sun. Obviously, this is where you really need it, on the western side. We did a little blow-up. You can't see the highlight there, but this is sort of a blow-up. This is the interior, and this is the glass line. We have the deep overhang. This is the metal panel eyebrow. These would be this random sort of layout of the glass panels. They do not go all the way back to the window wall. They sort of float independently, but they're always under the canopies or between the two canopies. Just to show you all sides of the building. This, again, is the concrete side of the building, and then the other areas of the building. This is pretty much staying as is with new material, but that structure needs to remain too. The slide that staff had. This is from the corner, the frameless glass, the raised planters, the benches and then this form that floats above, that's primarily glass and metal panel. A view from above. I think that's my presentation. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Are there any questions? Board Member Furth: Is this a multiple-tenant space now or is it a single-tenant, the building? Mr. Hayes: I'm sorry. I thought it was to staff. Board Member Furth: No, it was to you. Mr. Hayes: It's multi-tenant. It's very chopped up inside. The demising walls inside pretty much provide the support for all of the roof structure and the floor structure. Board Member Furth: When you finish this project, it would be a single-tenant space? Mr. Hayes: Correct. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Peter. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Board Member Baltay: One question for you, Architect Hayes, on the exposed concrete wall on one elevation and then the glass fins. What is the exact materials you're thinking for the concrete? Mr. Hayes: Mr. Baltay, this end of the building has the concrete wall that's an existing structure. We're actually going to wrap it with the same material that we would treat the base of the building with. It (crosstalk). Board Member Baltay: What is that material? Mr. Hayes: We're thinking that it would be either a porcelain tile or a stone tile. Board Member Baltay: Color, texture, feeling? Mr. Hayes: It would probably be in the darker tones, in a smooth, honed-type texture. It's not polished. We're showing gray right now. I'd love to do something in that sort of color range. Probably not a very colorful material, but one that's more of the earth. Board Member Baltay: The glass fins you've described, are they just clear, tempered glass? How thick? Mr. Hayes: No, they will be a laminated glass. It'll have a translucent film, the laminate. Board Member Baltay: Will they have that bluish tinge that glass tends to have or what are you thinking here? Mr. Hayes: It'll probably be more of a greenish tinge. I'm not sure. I don't think we're going to be using like a low-iron glass, so it'll have a bit of a—kind of like the building across the street. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Hayes: Which is more of a green. If you get on the edge, it's a little bit green. Board Member Baltay: That's what you'll be seeing, the edge of this, a lot. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, but it's not blue. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Board Member Kim: I have several questions for staff. The first question for staff is an explanation of the two parcels. It seems like at one point the applicant was trying to merge them and they decided not to. If you could explain the history behind that. Mr. Petersen: There are two parcels on the site. The project sort of straddles—not straddles, but there are two parcels. The dividing line between the parcels is in the parking lot. Board Member Kim: Originally were these residential parcels? Mr. Petersen: I don't have any history on the use or the historic use or … Vice Chair Lew: You can look in the Sanborn maps. There's everything here. Lytton and all the side streets were all Victorian houses. Board Member Kim: Next question for staff. I have more experience on the residential side. There's a certain boundary line between a rebuild versus a remodel. A certain deciding point in which a building is City of Palo Alto Page 5 considered almost new construction, even if parts of the building are kept. Is there a rule that applies to that in this case? Ms. Gerhardt: There isn't a bright line between remodel and rebuild for the Planning Department. There may be a more brighter line for the Building Department. Board Member Kim: My concern for that is that if Building later along the line says this is actually a rebuild and not a remodel, then I think you would also kick into play a lot of additional Code updates such as parking and accessibility and some other issues there. Mr. Petersen: If I can provide some insight. For this project, they're not adding or subtracting any square footage from the building. It's staying substantially the same. In terms of the parking, it's not going to trigger an increased demand in parking. (crosstalk) Board Member Kim: I understand that. It seems to me that the second floor, at least all the walls are being torn down. I understand that they're going in the same places, but it's a brand new wall essentially. Jonathan Lait: Thanks, Board Member Kim. We do need to look at that. As Jodie said, we do not have a clear definition of rebuilding, renovation. It is something that we do struggle with not only on the residential but also on the commercial side. There are some guidance in the Code in the R combining district, I believe. We can look to that. Understand your point that if it is a rebuild, parking may be an issue regardless of whether they're adding square footage. As a prelim, I don't think we've done an extensive amount of Code analysis on this yet. We're just sort of teeing it up for a conversation. We'll definitely take that comment and make sure we do that thorough Code review. Board Member Kim: Thank you very much. The remaining questions, I think, then get canceled out. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? You gave me a speaker card that says Item 5. Was that supposed to be for this one or the next one? Male: Next item. Chair Gooyer: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this Board on this particular item? Come on up. Did you fill out a card? If not, do so after you give your presentation. Please state your name. John Shenk: I will. I apologize for that, but I will do so. John Shenk with Thoits Brothers. We're the owner of the building and many buildings in the Downtown. We happen to own the building next door and the Victorians behind it. Not all of them; the one on the corner we don't own, but three of the other Victorians on the back side there we are proud owners of. I just wanted to share that we're excited at this opportunity to work with this particular tenant and Mr. Hayes on what I really look at as a significant improvement and reinvestment in the neighborhood. The building's got functional obsolescence in a lot of ways. This is an opportunity to make it healthier, make it brighter, filled with light, all of those kinds of things. Far more energy efficient than the existing building, because old buildings just are not very efficient in the systems and the guts of it. Just to how it feels. We're really excited by that. We're keeping it within the existing square footage. My take on single tenant, multi-tenant, I look at all of our buildings as being either. They just move over time. The current tenant is a single tenant. We could put—just as the building is now, we've gone from single tenants on the upper floor to four tenants on the upper floor. This same thing could happen in the future in terms of TIs and such. The opportunity today is to really transform the structure itself. What happens inside as we move ahead as very long-term owners—the Thoits family has been in the Downtown since the late 1800s. We'll ride this building for another 100 years as things go for the family. I just wanted to share we're very supportive. We are really a big owner in terms of owning the neighboring buildings as well. We love this concept, and our City of Palo Alto Page 6 neighbors and the tenants in the other buildings share our excitement. We'll see how we go through. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back to the Board. Alex, you want to start? Vice Chair Lew: Thank you, Ken. I don't really have that many comments on the building. I think everything that you've been doing is generally great. It's very handsome. The only things that I have are—there's the existing wall facing the driveway which is kind of blank. That seems to me a weakness. The perimeter of the project, like the existing conditions on the site and the transitions to the neighboring properties are pretty rough. Like the sidewalk's lack—no fences and all of that kind of stuff. Mr. Hayes: Lack of vegetation. Vice Chair Lew: I think you're not really presenting that today, but I just wanted to say that. That's what I'm looking for in the future. For staff, you had mentioned in the staff report that the project plans do not provide the pedestrian overlay amenities in our Downtown zone. I just want to say that the architect's intent is that the planters and the benches are the amenities. I think in the staff report you're saying that the building has a zero setback, but actually the building does have setbacks on Cowper and Lytton. I think it would actually meet the intent of the P zone, which is awnings, canopies, recesses, benches, seating, landscaping. I think it does do that. That's all that I have. Thank you, Ken. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Wynne. Board Member Furth: I admit I've been sitting here (inaudible) this is interesting zoning because it's CD- C and it's pedestrian overlay, but it's not ground-floor retail. We're supposed to be looking at this building to see how it provides pedestrian interest and essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows. This is an office use perhaps. I'm trying to think of how to make sense of all these goals and requirements. I suspect it's not going to have display windows or retail display areas, but windows that could be used for that purpose at some future date, which would be enough. Mr. Hayes: That's the thinking. Board Member Furth: I'm glad you have benches. I don't quite see this as yet being an enticing pedestrian experience. I wanted to ask staff a question. The ultimate in non-enticing pedestrian experiences is the Bank of America building across the street, except that it does have an elevated, open courtyard, which has its attractions. It has zero landscaping. Is that City standard in design for that site? Ms. Gerhardt: Certainly zero landscaping is not City standard. Board Member Furth: When we have this back, I would appreciate understanding a bit more about that. Lytton's in some ways a very beautiful street. I was driving up it at 6:00 in the morning coming back from the airport recently. You have a clear shot to the western hills. We have big trees. Most of its beauty comes from the fact that people have done some good architecture along it. They've preserved some old buildings that were good architecture at the time. We've got big and significant street trees. This block kind of fizzles out. I am hoping that, when this otherwise much more interesting and improved building happens, it will be a lot greener and a lot less glary over there than this drawing makes me think it might be. I realize the drawing is designed to show something other than landscaping. This is the street that's the edge of my residential neighborhood. There's this kind of scrim of alternating residential and nonresidential buildings across it. For me at least, it's fine to look at a beautiful office building, but I want it to look like a beautiful office building that's intended to be reached by pedestrians and that is an attractive place to find when I try to go from my residential neighborhood to the Downtown commercial area. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Gooyer: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Before I start, Architect Hayes, could you confirm for me please the existing roof structure, the cantilevered second-story part, is that being retained? Mr. Hayes: No. Board Member Baltay: It is not. Mr. Hayes: No, that's not being maintained. Board Member Baltay: Did I understand you to say it's being raised up? Mr. Hayes: Yes. We're raising it because the ceiling heights inside are barely 9 feet. All the duct work would need to be up on the roof of the building to get a modern mechanical system to work well. We're trying to increase the volume of the space inside. The roof structure is changing. Hopefully it'll be column-free, so we'll have a very flexible layout on the second floor. Board Member Baltay: I'm sorry, but I just can't find in the drawings how much it's going up by. What's the dimension? Mr. Hayes: 2 feet. Board Member Baltay: 2 feet. I'd like to see more detail on that certainly. I find it's a wonderful change for the neighborhood to have this building revitalized. It's sort of a sorry and old looking corner with tremendous potential, notwithstanding that the BofA building across the street is infinitely worse in my opinion without being remodeled. I find your idea of the continuous band of second-story glazed area with these light glass valances to be wonderful. I think it'll really be a neat effect on the street. It seems to me just about the right touch for being an office building but just two stories high. That said, I'm concerned. If you're raising it 2 feet higher, that could really be an issue, Architect Hayes. Right now, it feels about right, the scale of it, the mass of that building. 2 feet more makes that thing a little bit too top heavy in my opinion. I'd caution you to really study that carefully. I'm looking at the slanted clerestory element on the top, and that feels too top heavy to me. First I thought it just wouldn't be visible. Thinking about it more and as you approach Lytton from the west, I think it'll be quite visible. Mr. Hayes: You see it right here. Board Member Baltay: It has the risk of just being too top heavy in the (inaudible), which I don't think your intention is. Reflecting back on the building you proposed to us 6 months or so ago on El Camino, where you had a similar central courtyard with a covered area as a light well and you put more or less horizontal solar panels there, it had the same effect of letting light into the center of the building. I'm wondering if you couldn't tweak your design a little bit to try reduce the heaviness of it. I'm concerned especially … Mr. Hayes: (crosstalk) this is preliminary. We haven't gone real far. Board Member Baltay: I'm just throwing an idea at you. Mr. Hayes: Our concern is we want it to be high enough so that the clerestory windows are functional, so that we get some light in. Board Member Baltay: We all want it to be functional. What you proposed on that building was, I found, successful and attractive. Something like that—it also had a lighter feeling to it, and that might help here. When you come back next time, if you could be sure to have good renderings, showing the City of Palo Alto Page 8 context of all three corners, all three public corners of this building. That affects what I was talking about earlier, the choice of materials on that, I guess, west-facing wall, the large, blank concrete wall. My first reaction was why couldn't you modify it somehow. I can understand why it's very difficult to do. That said, your choice of material on that wall is critical. Mr. Hayes: We're also thinking that that wall will be where we put our core essentially. The functional core (crosstalk). Board Member Baltay: If you could make sure that we have renderings especially of that corner showing the context, showing how it fits into the community. That's an especially important concern of ours these days. Good renderings showing that will go a long way to selling your point or explaining to us what needs correction. On all three corners of the building, we'd really like to see good, eye-level, street-view renderings of the building and its context. I'd like to come to my biggest concern about this. This building is in the pedestrian overlay. That's something that the City and the City Council is especially concerned about these days. If you read the text of the Code, it clearly says that any renovations also trigger the Architectural Review Board to review this and make sure it complies with the pedestrian standards. I respectfully disagree with Alex saying that just by having planters there you meet the letter of the Code, I agree. I don't think you're creating pedestrian-friendly, outdoor spaces on the front of your building. I think there's some basic structural planning choices you've made that get you there. Could you put the main entrance to the building not off the parking lot but off of Lytton? Buildings that are public, buildings that people go in and out of … Mr. Hayes: We have an entrance on both sides. Board Member Baltay: Let me finish please. Buildings that are public have main entrances, things where the address is marked, where most people go in and out of, on the street, not on a parking lot. Mr. Hayes: That's exactly what we've done. Board Member Baltay: It looks to me like you have the two-story space, the main celebratory entrance on the back of the building. Mr. Hayes: No. You're going to walk in and be in a contiguous lobby that goes from street to parking lot. Board Member Baltay: I'd like to see if you couldn't also then get some additional entrances at the ground level off of Lytton and, I guess, Cowper there. Again, that may not be the need now for a single tenant, but as the buildings evolve that leaves the potential for having retail uses on that building. As it is now with the planters, that makes it impossible. The intent to … Mr. Hayes: We could certainly lower … Board Member Baltay: Please, Ken, let me finish. Mr. Hayes: I thought you were asking me questions. Board Member Baltay: I'm not asking questions; I'm trying to make statements. It would make it possible for future uses to be closer in conformance with the pedestrian overlay design idea, which is to make retail spaces, which is very much the intent of and the desire of the town now, to save our retail stuff. Understandably this is office space now, and you have the right to keep it that way. If you could make the design so it's possible to change it to future uses, that would be better. That would entail some more entrances along the edge and not having a continuous planter, but rather some give and take, places for not just a bench but a small seating area, an outdoor spot. If you study across the street where the taqueria is and a barber shop and a bunch of stuff like that, it's an incredibly active curb, street side. You just look at the two, and it's a dramatic difference in vitality of street life. Ask yourself City of Palo Alto Page 9 why is that. As an architect, I'm sure you're well aware of what I'm talking about. If there's things you could do to the ground floor of this building to bring that into play, that would do a lot towards making me feel that you're addressing in a real genuine spirit the pedestrian overlay requirements. I'll leave it at that. I think that's the single thing that needs change the most. Just somehow get it more pedestrian accessible. Thank you. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Kyu. Board Member Kim: Thank you for bringing this project as a preliminary review. You always do an exceptional job of giving an example of how the process should be done, starting with the preliminary review. I'm appreciative of that. The first thought that I had looking at the plans for this building was just the amount of generous daylight that you're presenting. I think the existing building does kind of make it feel much more enclosed and dark. I think this can be a very nice and exciting space inside, which is great for the occupants. Also the way that that translates to the outside will be a better architectural experience for those passing by the building as well. I think it's a very good-looking building. I think it doesn't seem forced to me. It seems very elegant in the way that it's been done. My hope is that it can remain as a remodel, so that it won't trigger additional Code issues. I think the overall design is just very simple and clean. I'm appreciative of what you're trying to do with the renovations. If I have any criticisms, it might be that—I think it's just part of the fact this is a preliminary package. It seems maybe a little too sterile right now. I think it's going to progress, so I'm not too worried about that. The planters, to me, on the ground level seem a little too long. Maybe they can be broken up or if there can be another look taken at that. I appreciate the benches that have been added, with the backs. I don't think they necessarily have to be wood. Maybe they can kind of blend in with some of the other building materials that you've got going on. I'm appreciative of that. Maybe take a look at the height of the planter and the bench. To me it looks a little high right now. I'm sure it can be adjusted. Kind of on a fun note, I was almost thinking that those glazing fins that you have, maybe in bar code they say Lytton or Palo Alto or something. I think that's kind of a fun idea with the fins that you've got going on there. I look forward to seeing more of the construction details, the materials as they get panned out and some of the other service things that are going in the building, such as the kitchens and bathrooms and what have you. Thank you for the preliminary package. I think it's a very good looking building. I'm excited to see this corner be a little bit more revitalized. Mr. Hayes: Thank you, Mr. Kim. Chair Gooyer: I think it's a great improvement. A couple of things responding to my fellow Board Members. I don't really have a problem with the extra 2 feet. I don't think it'll do much. The main thing, when I first saw it, is to me the clerestory seems like it was dropped on as an afterthought. It just doesn't really relate to the building. Part of that may also be the color, that it's a drastic change. Whatever the case is, I'd like to see it integrated a little bit more into the building itself. I guess the main other option is I agree with Peter that putting the planters all the way around the building like that with a rigid wall limits the flexibility of what could be done with the ground floor. You could still put some pots or whatever if you want to get some planting in there. I think it needs to be left a little bit more free flowing than a rigid—pardon me? Mr. Hayes: Like at grade level so you could actually walk … Chair Gooyer: Right, that sort of thing. I don't have a problem with—I like the concept of the elongated lobby so that it connects to both sides. That does give you a lot of flexibility. All in all, I think it's a real good start. Like I said, my main concern is the clerestory. Any other comments from anyone? Wynne. Board Member Furth: I was just thinking is 245 Lytton the great big, huge, long building? Mozart Development. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, the Kings building. Board Member Furth: That's an example of something that is quite big and is quite pedestrian-friendly, partly because you look at their through-lobby and you see this spectacular flower arrangement every day. When I'm looking for pedestrian amenities, I'm not just looking for a bench that faces the street. I really do think it's nice to have a place where you can sit and talk to somebody, where things … Mr. Hayes: Maybe we turn the benches and create alcoves or something. Board Member Furth: So that there are spaces that actually seem as though I'm invited. In this particular rendering, the landscaping looks like a moat. It's the opposite of inviting. Mr. Hayes: You know why the benches are there. Board Member Furth: This is why you have architects who can actually transform these drawings into (crosstalk). Board Member Kim: (crosstalk) Mr. Hayes: I wanted this conversation. We have benches, but let's figure out how to make them … Board Member Furth: This is not going to urge me to be there. I want to think I can go over and get my—as long as they let Sancho stay there, I can get my food and come over here and sit there and not feel I'm trespassing. I would be in favor of landscaping that isn't just below my knees. I want to have things blooming and hummingbirds doing whatever they do at ear and head height. I'm serious. There's a lot of intensively used—you're not very far from the creek. There's a lot of bird life over there. Chair Gooyer: Anything else from anyone? That's it. Mr. Hayes: Thank you all for your comments. Chair Gooyer: Hopefully you got some information that you need. Mr. Hayes: That was very good, very clear. Board Member Furth: Question for staff when you come back. The reason I was asking the question about multiple and single tenants is because it seems that most of the projects that we see involving office space involve the elimination of small, professional offices where people have therapy practices. I remember all the therapists emerged when we had a tax proposal. All of a sudden, we found out how many people actually operate Downtown in all those small consumer-serving businesses. We seem to be eliminating more and more and more of that kind of office space. I'm not entirely clear what kinds of uses the CD-C district permits in this regard. Good to know what your views are before we see this again. Thanks. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 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 “480 Lytton Avenue” and open the record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Project Plans 480 Lytton Avenue” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8073) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/13/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Charleston-Arastradero Corridor: Planting Plan Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Complete Streets and Green Infrastructure Project (17PLN-00128): Recommendation on Staff's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review of a Planting Plan in Conjunction With the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Complete Streets and Green Infrastructure Project. The proposal spans 2.3 miles from Miranda Avenue to Fabian Way on Charleston Road and Arastradero Road. The Concept Plan for the Project Was Previously Approved by City Council on September 28, 2015. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Was Prepared for the Project in 2004. An Addendum to the IS/MND Was Prepared in Conjunction With the Concept Plan Approval in 2015. For More Information Contact the Project Engineer Valerie Tam at valerie.tam@cityofpaloalto.org or the Project Planner 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 Public Works Department is proposing a plant palette and planting plan in conjunction with the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Complete Streets and Green Infrastructure Project. The Concept Plan line for the Corridor project was previously approved by the City Council on September 28, 2015, and included conceptual landscaping but did not present a specific plant City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 palette. The current proposal includes 65% drawings which show the location of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers located in the proposed road medians, bulbouts, and bioretention facilities associated with the project, as well as a specific plant palette. The project is subject to Architectural Review findings, and staff has included draft findings for approval in this report. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: Mark Thomas and Company Representative: Valerie Tam, Public Works Engineering Division Legal Counsel: Office of the City Attorney Property Information Address: Arastradero Road from Miranda Avenue to El Camino Real Charleston Road from El Camino Real to Fabian Way Neighborhood: Adobe Meadow/Meadow Park, Charleston Gardens, Fairmeadow, Greenmeadow, Walnut Grove, Charleston Meadows, Palo Alto Orchards, Barron Park, Green Acres Lot Dimensions & Area: 2.3 miles starting at Miranda Ave and Arastradero and ending at Fabian Way and Charleston Road; width of right-of-way varies from 80 to 120 feet along corridor Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: None Historic Resource(s): None Existing Improvement(s): 2.3 miles of asphalt and sidewalk Existing Land Use(s): Residential Arterial Road Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: various, GM, PC-4918 West: various, R-1 (8,000)(S) to RM-30 East: various, R-1 (7,000)(S) to RM-30, CS (H), and CN (GF, P) South: various, RE to RM-40 Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: maps.google.com Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: various Comp. Plan Designation: Not Applicable 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 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: Concept Plan Line Approval – September 28, 2015 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49065 PTC: Concept Plan Line Approval – April 29, 2015 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47044 HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor is a heavily used 2.3 mile roadway that services 11 schools, several parks, shopping centers, commercial uses, a library, day care centers, non- profits, and two community centers. The existing corridor has little to no traffic calming features and lacks protection for bicyclists and pedestrians, which is particularly an issue during peak traffic hours. For years, residents and other stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers, lack of integration with the surrounding community, and diminished community value due to minimal vegetation and trees in the right- of-way. In 2003, Council directed staff to prepare a Charleston-Arastradero Corridor to address school commute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers, as well as to enhance residential amenities along the corridor, without inducing traffic to shift onto nearby residential streets and maintaining the ability to handle existing and projected traffic. After two implementation phases with trial demonstrations in 2008 and 2012, Council approved the concept plan line presented by the consultant, Mark Thomas, on September 28, 2015. The concept plan line has been furthered refined by Mark Thomas and landscape architect firm Gates and Associates (Gates) on behalf of the City’s Public Works Department. Mark Thomas has completed the 65% plans, specifications, and estimate, and Gates included the landscaping plan. The plant palette proposed by Gates is a combination of California native species and species that adapt to the local climate with lower water use. Landscaping is included in both medians and bulb-outs to help beautify the existing corridor which currently is mostly asphalt. In addition to landscaping, public art by Susan Zoccola will be installed in medians and bulb- outs. Public Works Engineering has been working with Public Art in order to determine viable locations for the pieces. Zoccola’s vision for the corridor is to include intricate pieces that resemble wheels in motion to relate to the corridor’s heavy bicycle traffic. Her design also pays tribute to diatoms, bacteria found in water, to relate to the project’s green infrastructure features. The Concept Plan line did not include specific plant species, and given the size of the Corridor plan, the plant palette is being returned to the Architectural Review Board for consideration. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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. Analysis1 The landscaping for the project is consistent throughout the length of the corridor and incorporates a variety of plant material. Heights of the plants are taken into consideration in fire access zones as well as in areas that require sight distances when making turns. The plant palette includes a number of tree species, including valley and cork oak, European hornbeam, western redbud, crape myrtle, scarlet maple, and sycamore. Several sections of the corridor, in particular between Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road, contain existing underground utilities that may conflict with larger trees. In those areas, a selection of smaller trees and shrubs (”Revised Plant Palette for Underground Utilities”) are proposed including Eastern Redbud, Elegant Tristania, Marina Madrone, and Corns Housa Dogwood. Additional groundcovers and bioretention plantings are noted in the plant palette. Public Works Engineering has been discussing these conflict areas with Utilities in order to propose a solution that would not result in the removal of a high number of proposed trees from the project. In “Tree Conflicts with Wet Underground Utilities”, green circles represent trees that are 5 feet or more away from underground wet utilities, and red circles represent trees that are within 5 feet. Utility lines are also shown with red representing sanitary sewer, purple for gas, blue for water, green for storm drain, and black for dry utilities. Concern is only for wet utilities because tree roots may search for water at joints in the pipelines. The wet underground utility line that has the most conflicts is the sanitary sewer line. The first solution was to specify alternate tree species that were smaller as shown in “Revised Plant Palette for Underground Utilities”. Smaller tree roots are not expected to grow any larger than 3.5 feet deep. The City’s Urban Forestry Section and Public Works Engineering have reviewed the proposed alternate tree and shrubs species. 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 6 The initial 5-foot clearance resulted in removing 62% of the proposed trees. In further discussions, an alternate solution was developed that include installation of a tree root barrier system for trees that would be within 5 feet of wet underground utilities. A tree root barrier system, such as DeepRoot Tree Root Barriers, would help direct tree root growth downwards and not linearly towards wet underground utilities. In “Tree Conflicts with Wet Underground Utilities”, the trees that are circled in red are further broken down to be within a 1 foot clear, 1- 2 feet clear, 2-3 feet clear, and 3-5 feet clear from a wet utility pipeline. The following table shows the percentage of proposed trees and their clearances from wet underground utilities. Distance within a Wet Underground Utility Percentage of Proposed Trees 1 foot 26% 1-2 feet 14% 2-3 feet 17% 3-5 feet 5% Public Works Engineering is continuing to work with Utilities and Urban Forestry to develop an acceptable clear distance for wet utilities if a tree root barrier is used in conjunction with an alternate smaller tree species. Proposed trees that are within 1 feet of wet utilities are foreseen to be removed regardless due to its close proximity to wet underground utilities. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as noted in the ARB Findings (Attachment B). The planting plan and plant palette refine the landscaping component of a previously-approved project which implements a roadway project identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The plantings would be located in traffic medians, intersection bulb-outs, and bioretention facilities that are intended to calm traffic, enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, and provide stormwater treatment for the roadway. Multi-Modal Access & Parking This project consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan in that it will improve safety for pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles. The project is located on a Safe Routes to School path for Briones Elementary School, Hoover Elementary School, Terman Middle School and Gunn High School. The Transportation Division has given their comments regarding the project’s design, which will be reflected in the 100% drawings that are ultimately implemented. Comments included but were not limited to the review of striping detail specifications, placement of pavement markings, design specifications for turns, and traffic signal design. Consistency with Application Findings 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 7 The findings for approval of an Architectural Review application are included in Attachment B. A detailed palette can be found in “Plant Palette”. The landscaping proposed along the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor consists of regionally indigenous plantings that are drought- tolerant, and therefore in conformance with the ARB’s required findings. 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/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Was Prepared for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Project in 2004. An addendum to the IS/MND was prepared in conjunction with the Concept Plan approval in 2015. The planting plan and palette constitute a refinement of the landscaping identified with the Concept Plan, and present no environmental impacts beyond those identified in the IS/MND. The project has also been reviewed and approved in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CEQA and NEPA information is included in Attachment C. 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 June 30, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 3, 2017, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. 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 Authors & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Valerie Tam, Associate Engineer Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2397 (650) 329-2575 valerie.tam@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Graham Owen, Associate Planner 650-329-2552 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Project Map (PDF) Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Environment Assessment (DOCX) Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) Corridor map The Charleston- Arastradero Corridor: • Located in south Palo Alto • High volume, 2.3 mile roadway • Serving 11 Schools and lined with Private Residences, Commercial Uses and Non-Profits Middle fi e l d R o a d El C a min o R e al MeadowPark CharlestonGardensFairmeadow Greenmeadow CharlestonMeadows GreenAcres II Palo AltoOrchards Fa bia n Way Al m a Str eet M ir a n d a A v e n u e Alta MesaCemetery StanfordResearchPark CJL/BUILDDevelopmentSite DR HortonSite Barron Park Project Map Schools Corridor Green Acres I ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Arastradero Road from Miranda Avenue to El Camino Real and Charleston Road from El Camino Real to Fabian Way – 17PLN-00128 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 Comprehensive Plan contains goals, policies and programs that support the development of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project, many of which are listed below. Overall, the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project is consistent with Policy T-30 and generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. Goal L-1: A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces. Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians. Goal T-3: Facilities, Services and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling. Goal T-4: An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users. Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi- modal transit stations. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. Policy T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level of service at intersections. Policy T-40: Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes. Program T-19: Develop, periodically update and implement a bicycle facilities improvement program and a pedestrian facilities improvement program that identify and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers and civic facilities. Program T-33: Develop comprehensive roadway design standards and criteria for all types of roads. Emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety and usability in these standards. Policy T-30: Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by designating certain streets as residential arterials… The City’s objective is to address the desires of residents of these streets who would like to have slower speeds, safer conditions for bicycles and pedestrians, and aesthetic improvements… Examples of improvements are “boulevard” treatments (landscaped medians and planting strips), gateway features, and traffic signal changes. Program T-41: The following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat these streets with landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to reduce speeds. Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road) University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road) Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road) Charleston / Arastradero Roads (between Miranda Avenue and Fabian Way) The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 (BPTP) lays out the development of the Bicycle Boulevard network and prioritizes corridors for development of these facilities. BPTP objectives that are furthered by the development of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project include: Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively). Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks and open spaces to promote healthy, active living. Objective 4: Plan, construct and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities. Objective 5: Promote efficient, sustainable and creative use of limited public resources through integrated design and planning. 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’s focus is to construct landscaped traffic calming features that will protect pedestrians, bicyclists and automobiles. Features include landscaped bulb outs and medians, raised crosswalks, refuge islands, pavement markings, modify curb ramps to comply with ADA standards, buffer zones between different modes of transportation, and traffic signal modifications. The proposed landscaping would beautify the residential arterial road with a variety of colorful plant materials and would create a sense of order and additional safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. 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 project’s plant palette includes low-water use and low-maintenance species that vary in texture and foliage color to provide visual interest. Selected plants will transform the existing flat road by giving it dimension. Accent trees and various shrubs provide color to the commute along the corridor. 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 planting plan and plant palette refine the landscaping component of a previously-approved project which implements a roadway project identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The plantings would be located in traffic medians, intersection bulb-outs, and bioretention facilities that are intended to calm traffic, enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, and provide stormwater treatment for the roadway. 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: The project is consistent with the finding in that the project adds trees in areas where possible, converts sections of asphalt road to pervious vegetated areas, and creates bioretention areas for stormwater runoff to be captured. The project’s landscaping includes dought tolerant species and a variety of trees, shrubs, and perennials suitable to the site. 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 plant palette includes the use of regionally indigenous, drought-tolerant species that would encourage water conservation and help treat stormwater runoff from the roadway, as further described above. Attachment C Environmental Documents All environmental documents for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project can be reviewed online here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3794&TargetID=145 A direct link to the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (December 2003) can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57919 A direct link to the Addendum to the Final Initial Study/MND (August 2015) can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57923 A direct link to County Notice of Declaration for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (November 2015) can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57918 A direct link the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (November 2015) can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57920 Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and 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: The Public Works Engineering Division maintains a news detail for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan. The website has additional information on the development of the plan and associated environmental documents. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3794&TargetID=145 A direct link to the projects plans are included here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57425 Additionally, the Transportation Division maintains a website for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan. The website contains background information on the development of the concept plan line and associated studies. A link to the website is included here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/city_information/projects/transit/charleston.asp City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Board Member Wynne Furth, Robert Gooyer, Board Member Peter Baltay Absent: Vice Chair Kyu Kim Chair Lew: Welcome to the Architectural Review Board Meeting for June 1st, 2017. Can we have a roll call, please? Kyu Kim is absent today and he would also be – if he were here today, he would be recused on item number two or three. Also, just for – let’s finish the roll call. Oral Communications Chair Lew: Now is the time for oral communications. The public many speak to on any item that’s not on the agenda. I don’t have any speaker cards so I will close that, the oral communications. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Lew: Under agenda changes, additions and deletions, I did want to point out to the Board that the – in the packets that the numbering sequence is a little off but I think that’s fine for the publics. I think the agenda is correct on all the packet materials or where available. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Study Session 2. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00136 and 17PLN-00135]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Approximately 40,351 Square Foot Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a New Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to Contain 636 Parking Spaces on six Levels (two Below Grade) With a Footprint of 37,075 Square Foot and Floor Area of 149,500 Square Foot. The Public Safety Building Site Would be Developed With Three Individual Buildings and Provide 167 Parking Spaces for Use by the Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared; Formal Project Application not yet Submitted. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information, Please Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Lew: We can move onto the first item which is number two. A study session for 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue. Preliminary Architectural Review of a new approximately 40,351-square foot Public ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: June 1, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a new parking structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to contain 636 parking spaces on six Levels, two below grade and four above grade, with a footprint of 37,075- square foot and floor area of the 149,500-square foot. The Public Safety Building would be developed with three individual buildings and provide 167 parking spaces for use by the City Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and the Fire Department. Environmental Assessment is an environmental impact is being prepared. A formal application has not yet been submitted and the zone district is PF. Amy French, Welcome. Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I am here with Matt Raschke, who is with the Public Works Department and the lead on this project. The – as noted in the report, the scoping session had occurred at the Planning and Transportation Commission on April 12th. This is in compliance with the notice of preparation of an initial study that identified the areas – the topic areas to be studied in a draft Environmental Impact Report. That period of review closed in early May and – May 10th I believe and there were not a lot of comments received about what additional topics should be studied. The two sites are across the street from the County Court House there – the City Court House and a mixed-use housing project that the ARB – some members of the ARB may remember at 385 Sherman. It backs up to an alley, Jacaranda Lane, that backs up to the Cal. Ave businesses there on California Avenue. The Council has weighed in and stated that they wanted maximized parking on the PF zone site. That zone site is also having a land use designation of a regional community commercial. At one point in time, there was a consideration for retail. The Council heard from the business district folks and decided to move forward with an all parking option there on that site. The Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman, Matt and the applicant’s architect who is here will describe that – both projects as far as architecture. So, today it’s a preliminary review. We’re seeking comment on the three options that are shown in the plans and this will be coming back to you as a formal architectural review application. Mr. Matt Raschke, Public Works Project Planner: Thank you, Amy. Matt Raschke, Public Works and I am the project manager for this – the Public Safety Building and garage project. The Public Safety Building is on the highest infrastructure plan priority for the City and as part of that, we had selected this site parking lot, C6, to place this new essential services facility there. Then, to mitigate the parking there was also, in the infrastructure plan, a new garage plan for the Cal. Ave business district and the projects were combined such that the parking lost on lot C6 can be recouped on a new parking structure on lot C7. Then on April 3rd of this year, City Council gave Staff direction to basically maximize the garage capacity to about approximately 636 spaces; four stories above ground and two stories below. They decided not to pursue a retail element on the parking structure. Just to give you a little background on that and then I would like to welcome Mallory Cusenbery from RossDrulisCusenbery Architectures to give the presentation on the project. Thank you. Chair Lew: Welcome and you have 10-minutes. Mr. Mallory Cusenbery: Good morning. Thank you. Alright, thank you for having us. I am looking forward to having the chance to get input from you on this. The statues of the project are that we’re in early schematic design. We’ve been doing schematic design in program verification concurrently. We now have an approved program and scope size and we’re doing out initial schematic design approach which is to go out and to talk to a lot of different groups, including yourselves, and get a lot of feedback and a lot of input on the early phases of the design. With the goal of getting a sense to where people are at. I want to make clear that what we are presenting today to you are not proposals. They are not design approaches as much as they are conversation starters. Our goal really is to generate some dialog and get a sense – get the temperature of the community. Find out what some of the ambitions and the hopes are for this very important project. Just to orient you, this is an early massing model to just put the thing in context. This right here on the lower photograph – I am using my curser and tell me if you can’t see it. This is California Avenue right here, this the Public Safety Building site, this is the parking garage site, this is the Court House, the new Visa building, and various mixed use and retail functions are around it. This is looking from the side of the Court House in the foreground here. The parking structure there and the Public Safety Building there. Officially, this is lot C6 and C7, which you can see here and here. The City of Palo Alto Page 3 streets – the (inaudible) are Park Boulevard right here, Birch, Ash to the south. We’re using project north being up on this illustration so to the south is Sherman and then Jacaranda Lane here. There are two existing parking lots on which the parking with be displaced and then relocated into the new parking structure. It’s a very diverse context. These are some photographs of various heights, various building types, mixed use residential, Court House and the new office building. The parking lots themselves are surrounded by trees but have no trees within the parking lot itself. Then here are the sites themselves. I will give you a little bit of data about them. The lower illustration you can see the height of the Public Safety Building is here, on the far left and then on the far right is the height of the parking structure. This one – this diagram assumes photovoltaic panels on top of three-stories of parking and you can see the heights relative to other buildings in the neighborhood. The Public Safety Building on the right has a public plaza here. It has – this is the footprint – the main footprint for the three-story Public Safety Building, which go up to 50-feet high. There are a few one-story site buildings our here. This area right here is a fenced in operational outdoor area for the Police Department and then the alley is continuous in the same direction as it is to the north here. Then the parking structure is almost property line to property line on all sides except the Birch Street side right here where there’s about a 12-foot setback currently. The parking structure is around 36 ½-feet to the top of the guard rail and then if the photovoltaic panels are put on top, it’s around 47 – these are rough numbers but roughly around 46-47— feet to that height. You’ll notice the setbacks and I’ll give you a little bit of background on the drivers for some of why this is looking as it is. The Public Safety Building has setbacks on all side, that is in part driven by operational requirement for the Police Department. We want to have a security setback from all public rights-of-way, where we have subtle barriers for vehicular movements so they can’t approach the building more than 25-feet on any side. The minimum-security setback around the building is 25-feet and then we’ve increase that setback for the plaza area over on this side. There is garage – there are two garages – two, two-way ramps to the subterranean parking for the Public Safety Building. One off of Sherman, one off of Birch and the primary vehicular entry for the parking structure is off of Sherman with the primary pedestrian access off of Birch near Jacaranda. The driver for the size of the parking structure was to optimize the quantity of parking spaces and as you said, it’s 637, that is our target and so that’s pushed it out to the property lines. I want to offer one correct or addition to the packet that you have there. The Public Safety Building square footage is actually not 40,000-square feet. That’s an older number. The approved number is 45,500-sqaure feet so that’s a correction. Those – I mentioned a couple of programmatic drivers for the scale and the massing of the Public Safety Building. There are also a lot of community design opportunities that we took advantage of and looked at the massing. What you see here are some early photomontages that are based on the current massing. As you see, there are no design in here, just the massing but this is looking down Birch Street. You can see the Public Safety Building here and the Court house in the foreground and then in the lower illustrations is this is Park Boulevard. You see the three-story Public Safety Building here with the one-story elements here as they approach Park. We looked at a lot of different options for how to mask this building. We looked at a two-story option, initially thinking that it might be less imposing as a two-story building. It spreads out and in addition to operational drivers which said that a compact building works much better for the Police Department. There were a lot of other benefits that we saw. In fact, our discovery was that the three- story massing was less imposing and actually tucked itself away in surprising ways as you move through. In this case, in the upper image, you can see the Court House as you approach California Avenue. It’s still the dominate building and then as you go towards the mixed use residential on Park Boulevard on the lower image, you can see that the building steps down. Similarly, in views from California Avenue, you’ll have to look closely on the lower image, the larger one, the Public Safety Building is here completely behind that existing tree. It’s not apparent on that view at all and then from the corner of Park and Cal. Ave, you can see it tucked back. This is the street three-story volume here, tucked back and not taller than other commercial actually, in relative proportion that you see here. Then when you are actually standing mid-block, a little bit of it peeks up above the roof tops there. I will point out a little detail, you will notice that there is a tower. There is an intention to have a telecommunication tower that is building mounted mono-pole; not a truss tower. That will be 136-feet from ground to the top of the tower but it will be building mounted. That is not 135-feet there. You will see subsequent massing models where we’ve represented it at 135-feet. This is based on an earlier height, which we’ve subsequently done more research to height that it has to be. These are some building sections. This is a section through the main public plaza. You can see in the upper left, you can see the parking structure here with the photovoltaics City of Palo Alto Page 4 and the plaza here. The three-story Public Safety Building and you can see the two-stories subterranean for (inaudible) parking structure and the Public Safety Building. A lot of the focus that we had now was once we had established the programmatic drivers and scale and context drivers, was – is to put a lot of emphasis on pedestrian orientation. Observation we had for these particular two side is that the pedestrian use of the environment varies depending on which frontage. On the, what we are calling the north/south direction on Park Boulevard, Birch and Ash, there is a lot of pedestrian movement in particularly around lunch time. When you have a lot of people who are working in the – to the south, who are coming to Cal. Avenue. So, they come two, three, four, five at a time and so having some width for people – for a group of people – individuals coming together to go get lunch and be able to walk side by side. Currently, there isn’t even space. You see when they get to this lot they have to single file as they pass by the parking lots. The idea is to provide a more generous space for that movement in that direction. We observed less movement in the east/west direction along Sherman. With the new office building and the Court House there, any pedestrian activity there tends to be a little more static. People come out and smoke a cigarette. They’ll talk on a cell phone. They are not moving so much on Sherman and we’re trying to take that into consideration. The idea here is to have – I’m starting on the right side of the image along Park – excuse me – we would have a widen pedestrian area there along the one-story buildings to provide the width necessary for pedestrian movement. In the plaza here, you see the building is significantly stepped back and the idea would be to program the plaza for lunch time uses or another passive or active pedestrian uses. There is the shading and landscaping along the parking structure here. Then on the west side of the parking structure, the intent is to provide an arcade so even though the parking structure goes to the property line on that side on the first level to a ceiling height that we’re hoping to be around 11-feet. We have a pedestrian arcade with the stairs to the parking – a secondary stair to the parking structure visible there but it gives some width for movement in that location. Zooming in there, you can see the plaza – again, these site plans that you are seeing now are conceptual. These are just early passes at it to again, generate conversation but you can see that the idea is that we are providing some zone along the front of the Public Safety Building, which provides security for the police and so you don’t want people getting to close to the building but though we do want to have a zone set back here. Where we have seating opportunities, shade opportunities, maybe outdoor tables so again, you can accommodate individuals from Cal. Avenue to come and have lunch or other hours. The way that the parking structure hits the street right now on the left, that is the current approach. We’re exploring some option for that as well. Again, pedestrian orientation is a big driver for us so if you look at the illustration on the right, one current study that we are doing and we’re looking for feedback on this as well, would be to actually have an exterior mounted staircase here. That allows you to walk up the side of the parking structure, exit onto the different levels but creates a more ceremonial civic stair that then it’s outlet is in the direction of Cal. Avenue on that side, creating a little bit more of a dramatic presentation for the pedestrians. Then have a secondary arcade here with bicycle parking that leads you towards the alley that has Starbucks on it, which is a just a little bit over to the left in that illustration. Then those are some of the big sight concepts. What I am going to do then is orient you towards three of the concepts that we have started to gather some of our thinking around. Again, these are conversation starters but our goal is to kind of create three types of attitudes for lack of a better word; three approaches to how the building may be designed to capture different – a different feeling. We’ve tried – we’ve aimed to have a consolidation of design ideas within each of these concepts that differentiate each other but create a clear identity. The first one, concept one, we are calling screening and greening. The idea there is based on some feedback we’ve heard from people that are saying well, maybe you should down play the building’s presence. Maybe the building should be a little bit more of a background building and not necessarily as assertive. To achieve that, this approach takes kind of an organic approach where we use organic materials. Wood like materials for window screening, deeply textured hard walls. You can see samples of materials here. Maybe some building plantings on the parking structure where you have vines on the parking structure or dense plantings on the Public Safety Side, a double row of trees and basically creating an environment where we are creating more of a visual organic feel to the buildings and down playing their presences as objects. So, you can see some of the materials sample there. These are initial, initial, elevation sketches and this is a massing model. We do not have windows shown so these are just the volumes but you can get a sense for the textures, the organic qualities and maybe even some of the vines on the parking structure. Things like that and the denser plantings there. For this first concept, the idea would be that landscape would follow along so the City of Palo Alto Page 5 site development would have again, more organic shapes. As evidence by the photographs on the right where it’s a little more meandering and it down plays – it doesn’t have a civic formal presence. It’s a little more informal in its design articulation. So, that’s concept one over one, screening and greening. The second concept takes a very different approach. It says alright, we actually want the building to have – to assert itself as a design presences and we’re calling this one dynamin massing. Where it actually creates some visual interest, and has a contrast in the materials and a play in materials that are a little more assertive. I don’t want to necessarily say playful but a little more dynamic in how they present themselves. The color pallet doesn’t really show on this screen here. Hopefully, the color resolution on your screen is a little better. The color pallet would be based on historic colors – colors of historic buildings within Palo Alto so the idea of Terracotta color or a light-colored tan plaster. Those types of materials that you see on a lot of the historic buildings but updated and presented in a contemporary language in this scheme. You can see up closer here, again we’re not – these are just conceptual window locations but again, it’s taking portions like the ECO above here or the stair tower over here or some of the other program elements and popping them out as individual volumes to create some of that dynamic. You can see the play here. One of the things that is a theme throughout all of these and we’re interested in feedback on this as well, is getting the Public Safety Building and the parking structure to work in tandem. Having them work together so that whatever design approach we take on the Public Safety Building, we take on the parking structure as well and creating somewhat of a gateway entrance towards Cal. Ave. So, you can see that play here, where the volumes and the play continue over onto the parking structure. There is a long – in this scheme there is a long wall opportunity where what we are seeing is a possible public art opportunity on the wall that faces the Visa building. Again, comparable for this second scheme. The site development would also be dynamic as well with the way that we have site furnishings and volumes being playful. Now one of the things that I want to add and I didn’t mention this earlier but we are creating the vehicular barriers along the perimeter of the site, which is necessary for the public safety function. However, we do not want this to feel like a fortress so whatever we are doing, as you can see in those photographs there, in terms of seat walls, in terms of planters, those will be the barriers. This will not look fortified. This will look like it’s a variable three-dimensional landscape, which also then provides the subtle but transparent security barriers that we need. The other thing that I will mention is the subterranean parking is property line to property line so all planters will be raise anyway just by virtue of the fact that there is no dirt below the parcel. Then the third concept takes yet a different approach and we’re calling this one simple civic and the idea is that for those that feel like a more appropriate language for this project would be understated, formal and less dynamic. This approach is still a contemporary take on it but the idea is to use vertical proportions. The bottom windows along the perimeters along the building would invoke colonnade. It is a little more understated in its development and the use of materials. For instance, the white would be like a Sierra white granite which is a common civic material for public buildings throughout the Bay Area. Traditional brick and things like that but again, in a more understated, serious civic kind of approach. You can see that massing here again to create a dialog between the parking structure and the Public Safety Building. We would have some of those elements present in both of them and the site as well would follow along. This time having a kind of radial approach where the approach to the building is playing up at that linear perch as you see on the exterior of the building. In closing, then these are really – again, as you can see, we have kind of clustered them and the hope is to have internals consistent approaches that – again, for lack of a better term, attitudes and we’re curious how the community responds and what everyone thinks is an appropriate language for this type of a building in this type of a context. With that, I will open it up for questions. Chair Lew: Ok, so thank you for that. Before we get into the question, I did want to open up the – this to the public for any comments. I don’t have any speaker cards for this particular item but I will keep that open in case there are any. So, are there any questions from the Board? No. Ok, then we will just move onto comments. Anybody want to start? No. Robert? Board Member Gooyer: I like the basic concept. The thing that is a little bit – I don’t know, I think it needs some additional thought on the building itself. It seems like you’ve gone through all the effort to camouflage or not camouflages but to make it a very attractive building. Then you have that sort of utilitarian parking lot next to it. I mean it – I just have a problem with that. Especially with a lot of the City of Palo Alto Page 6 building in the area are hire that look down on that and invariably, I’ve seen police yards before and they end up just being a mess. A lot of the buildings like I said, around it looks right down on that and if you’ve got a couple of floors – if this had no subterranean parking, I’d say you don’t need it but in this particular case, you do. I’d rather see some of the functions that are maybe straight forward parking or some other function go up and then the sort of utilitarian stuff moved down. As to the options, I – to me to a certain extent, they all look like bunkers. I mean I know the function that goes on there and you need a certain amount of that but – so I figured that if that’s the case then you might as well express it in more of a dynamic concept so I like scheme two better or I should say as a start. It’s a little bit more interesting if you are going to go a little bit out there, why not? I’m not a big fan of, in general, putting wood cladding on like a parking structure to make it – to hide that it’s a parking structure. I mean come on, anybody knows what it is. As far as a parking structure, I’d rather have it look like a parking structure rather than something that you’re attempting to hide because you’re never going to hide that it’s a parking structure. I think all in all I’d prefer option two and with some of the modifications. I’ll see if there’s anything else that comes up while my other colleagues have some comments. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Ok, good morning and thank you. I have to say that I applauded the approach of bringing it to us and trying to crystallize a couple of ideas and just being open to feedback. It really is great to be involved in it at this stage. I have a bunch of thoughts that I will through out at you and hopefully coherently. First of all, it struck me that I don’t think the building should be designed to be seen together as a pair and as a gateway down Birch Street. It strikes me that one has a very distinct civic function as a Public Safety Building and the other, the parking structure, really is rather unfortunate that we need it at all. I think from following the political discourse over the past few years, everybody agrees that we need it and everybody laments the fact that we need it. Why didn’t we plan for this better? I think that’s where we are right now. How did we get here on where we need to spend this much money and make this big of building? We all need it but I think it’s not the same as the Public Service – Public Safety Building. That’s a civic building and it’s one of the few that we’re building in our generation. Let’s make it something special. That said, if I could then address the public safety lot first, lot C6. If I could get you to change two things, I would say remove the ramp that enters onto Birch Street. That’s the most important pedestrian area; going up and down Birch Street. It’s right past Café Pro Bono over to the California Avenue. To have a 20-foot ramp for police cars there just strikes me as grossly inappropriate and I really don’t think there should be any vehicular access into either of these buildings from Birch Street. Secondly, as Robert mentioned, the large parking area behind the Public Safety Building so to speak, the secure parking – the outdoor police facility. I really wonder if you couldn’t put that underground or somehow just not where it is. I completely agree that those tend to look unsightly and very off putting after a few years of police use on that. It’s not an attractive thing and yet this is a very important property. It’s pretty close to the downtown area, which is developing even more that way. If there is anyway to – what I would like to see is just shift the Public Safety Building further away from Birch and make a larger public plaza in front of it. Sort of on the scale of what we have over on Lytton and University here now, which is about twice that size. It would be a much more appropriate use of that open space and put the police outdoor activities some other place. Underground or I don’t know how you – I’m sure there’s a lot of complicated functional stuff but just looking at the site plan, it just seems to be inappropriate that the parking lot for the police is twice the size of the public plaza, when you are half a block off of California Avenue; it just seems inappropriate. I agree with you that the massing of the Public Safety Building should be taller and more compact. A 50-foot building is fine in that location as your presentation showed it. It’s not overpowering and it’s not out of scale with the area and I think it’s better if you can get a larger plaza to go with that. I think it would be good if you can get vehicular access on both of these buildings off of Sherman as much as possible. You are correct, I think in your observation that a lot of pedestrian traffic is north/south along Park and Birch and Ash Street so to the extent that you can bring in vehicular traffic off of Sherman, which is also somehow a calmer street. I don’t know how to put it but I know coming in on Birch Street always seems to be a bit of a nerve-wracking. You just pulled off of Page Mill and you’re sort of slowing down or there’s people walking or you park your car and you’re walking on University Avenue late at night. It’s not the place to have a police car coming out. I’m left then thinking about the Public Safety Building and your design options. I really like the idea of it City of Palo Alto Page 7 being civic. I really dislike the images that you’ve shown us. They don’t look in the least bit civic to me and so you’re left at having sort of a philosophical discussion of what is civic? So, what I would like to do is point out some things that I would think would make that building civic. By civic, it’s timeless. It’s something that 50-years from now is still going to be looking good. It’s going to be there that long. I look at other buildings around town – not to say that we should copy that architectural style but Birge Clark’s Post Office has a civic presence to it somehow. All of us love that building so why is that? Lucie Stern Theater is another one but if I could ask you – your design team to just sort of ask yourself, what makes it a civic, timeless building? To me, it’s a memorable form that are advocative of a public function and you do have to do some soul searching because the public function here is rather security conscious. I think back to the armory up in San Francisco in the Mission District and it’s a serious security focused building and yet there’s something about it that feels Civic; that feels public. I walk by that and I feel kind of proud. That’s what my community built. To me, that’s what this building should have. It’s built with durable and timeless materials. Plaster and stone, that really will withstand the test of time. That won’t be off-put by poor maintenance from a failing City Council and things like that. It also has a public interface. The arcade on the Post Office, there’s something about that ability of people to sort of step into it a little bit. Again, granted that this is a Public Safety Building with police security but that’s what it wants. Somehow the part where the public goes in where it’s on the edge of the plaza, should feel like hey, this my police station. I live in this town. Somehow what we are seeing in these images – I understand that they are schematic massing models but they’re not massing the right things. The last comment on that building then was just response to your comment about 135-foot tall communication tower of some kind. That just seems really extreme and it’s necessary, I would ask you to try to somehow put it in a design that makes sense. We had a very thick flag pole on a small fire station which never quite worked but 135-feet is a tall tower and that will be visible from everywhere. Is it really necessary and if so, do something to make it really work? Then on to the parking garage. I really do, again, want to reinforce that I think it’s necessary at the size that it is but it’s just unfortunate. It’s too bad that we have to spend public money doing this kind of thing for lack of planning in the past. That said, I think that you can’t really camouflages the building but as much as you can to soften the edges. Give them some ins and outs. Put a tree, a place for public -- a bench to sit on, a small plaza. Just anything that you can do to soften the edge and to take away the focus. This is not a civic building, this is just a necessary thing that we have to have. It’s a parking area so make the edge of it more user friendly. Easier to get in and out of. Perhaps consider having two entrances just to make it function better but each one again, gives you an opportunity to have some ins and outs of the building. Put some more landscaping there. It’s imperative to use materials that are incredibly durable and simple. This is the last building that City Council is going to vote to paint or do anything to so wood siding or anything remotely like that just won’t work. It will just look terrible over time. I know it’s a political question and that’s not in our purview but having retail on the ground floor would make sense. We’re striving to get more life, more pedestrian activity and retail is the best way to do that. Much better than benches and things so I would just put that on the record. That’s what I think we ought to be doing with that. So, that sums up my comments about these. Again, my biggest concern is this ramp into the Public Safety Building off of Birch. Mr. Cusenbery: If I could with permission, one clarification that I failed to mention during the presentation. The two ramps that Board Member Baltay is referring to, they provide different functions. The Sherman Avenue ramp is the primary ramp to the operations level. It’s the ramp that the police vehicles will be coming and going from. The Birch ramp is the second means of egress for operational vehicles in a state of an emergency but they won’t be using that primarily. They will primarily be arrival and departure of personal vehicles because that ramp goes down one level and then continues down into the second subterranean level, which is where the personal vehicles are parked. The day to day operations will be police vehicles off of Sherman and personal vehicles off of Birch so to the extent that that’s helpful. Board Member Baltay: Well, it’s an explanation of why it’s there. It doesn’t change the fundamental notion to me that that’s the wrong place to have the ramp. Let me throughout one last response to an idea that you mentioned or at least I thought I heard you say something about a staircase on Birch Street into the public parking garage. It occurs to me that I think that that’s a great idea. If that stair where City of Palo Alto Page 8 broader and more open to say the second level, it’s a great place for people to interact with the parking garage on an easy informal level. A landing – a place to put a chair and it just struck me as a neat idea. Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. This is an impressive and even an intimidating project and I’m glad that it’s come to us early. We often talk about City projects and we’re not – if they get to us at the time when the choice is a flat roof or a pitched roof or a curved roof, it really is too late to be of much use. So, despite your request – respectful request that we stick to these three alternatives, as you can see, we’re going to engage you in a more extensive way. Also, thank you very much for giving us the transcript of the PTC’s environmental review scoping hearing. I’m very interested in knowing what the design team thinks are the defining characteristics of this area? You know, this our second – historically our second downtown; this is Mayfield. It’s been less commercial, less big corporate though we now have Visa across the street. It’s been greener, it’s been flatter, it’s had more views of the sky, it has more views of the hills but what’s interesting to me in connection with this project specifically, is that it’s been radically rebuilt south – and thank you for using north and south, south of this project and millions and millions of dollars of private money has gone in here recently and the results are building that are and look expensive. They have elegant materials, they have totally underground parking, and they respect the earlier residential. This is one of our best neighborhoods for attractive multiple family housing. It – you know we have that little Sarah Wallace pocket park, which is quite lovely. It does not seem to be child friendly but it is quite lovely and I want to know how this project is going to rise to meet those standards? I don’t want it to look cheap. I’m sure it won’t be cheap under any circumstance but I want it to look like we spent our money intelligently and well. I think about 2650 Birch, Birch Plaza, which is not particularly new but I think it exemplifies a lot of the things that work in that neighborhood. I think about the Visa building, which is across the street and I would – it has everything in terms of pedestrian friendliness in that essentially block long development except for a place to have coffee so I would love coffee in the garage. I think – you talk about maximize parking spaces and that’s important but when we had something even more important, which is affordable housing at the Opportunity Center, we lost three units to keep oak trees and a dawn redwood. You know, they are still alive and it still makes that a much more effective place to house people as they move through that setting into another. I would argue that we will be better off in terms of use of this neighborhood, a reduction in conflict over parking spaces in general but a well-being attitude of people coming to this area if you carve out space that may lose us a few parking spaces here and there but make this a place we want to be and where we don’t feel treated like cattle. Very well feed cattle but still. You know, 410 Sherman is another interesting building. It’s another thing that abuts this thing. It’s on the diagonal and one of the things that interesting about the Court House is that it’s on the diagonal so even though it’s tall, it’s very seldom close to the curb at that height. On the other hand, it’s a tragedy because of that parking lot. It’s like the old PAMF building. It’s a mid-rise in a sea of asphalt. Well, the County is underfunded. They can’t maintain that building properly. I don’t think they had the right materials when they built it in the first place because I have gone there as a lawyer, I remember it as much taller because I am always terrified when I walk into that building but actually, it’s not very big and it doesn’t look very big because of that angling approach. I don’t know if there is a way you can acknowledge that fact that it angles but I would be interested in knowing but mostly I want to know that you’re designing this building for this place. We get a lot of commercial buildings where their agenda is driven by national and international branding. This isn’t and so I want this building to look like it is the wonderful expression of that area we can imagine. Not a high standard, right? This area, it’s higher density than Research Park so we don’t have sort of conspicuous consumption of land that goes on there. It’s lower density than downtown so it’s got lighter and air and greenery and I would like this project to continue to drive in that direction and to address better than it does now, people with strollers, people with intermittent mobility problems, people with anxiety about getting mugged. I am really interested – going to be interested to see how you design a block long parking structure that I am comfortable walking into at 10 o’clock at night. I’m delighted with your suggestions for external stairways. I’m assuming that elevators will be glass and on the outside. I hope we’ll have Portland’s airport style indicator lights that tell me where the available spaces are. Most of all for that building, I want Portland style downtown parking garages which are designed and built to be converted to housing City of Palo Alto Page 9 so they have flat floor plates. I had a really interesting conversation the Community Development Director there and that’s what they are building now. I know they are doing that – a private developer is doing that in Los Angeles as well. I think this is an alternative that the EIR should certainly address. I appreciate what you are doing along Birch. I appreciate the agenda to produce a Public Safety Building that does not seem to be a place where an occupying force stands down until needed. A place that invites people in. I think it’s essential that a place that invites people in has a lobby with clear marked and assessable public bathrooms. I didn’t see that on the drawings so far but I think this building will fail if it doesn’t have that. Though, of course, I am very pleased with the idea that we would have better working spaces for the people who do work in public safety and sturdier emergency operation systems. This is – I’m very happy that we’re moving forward. I agree that to have driveways for private police vehicles – police officers – public safety worker vehicles going in and out of this plaza on Birch is a tremendous undesirable. I would like to see another way of doing that. I’m also – a civic building to me should exemplify what we want to happen in this City in public and private development and we basically, would not be to suggesting to anybody else that they have surface parking in an area like this. So, I don’t like seeing us having surface parking in an area like this. I’m also curious as to whether the one-story builds could work as two-story buildings and again, give us more pull back. If you stand in the Molly Stone parking lot and loo towards this site, you’re going to see it. Right now, you see trees and a little bit of the Court House and I’m curious as to what we will see with this approach. I imagine it could be quite planted out but the idea of single-story buildings and surface parking on land this expensive doesn’t not strike me as the optimal solution. Also, in terms of – you know, these are big. This an acre office space, right? We’ve amended our code recently to ask that when we do landscaping that we use native plants and we create habitats. I mean, I was looking at my little six by eight habitats in my alley behind my house and counting the humming birds this morning. This could – I would like to know that when this is built, this is going to be a bird rich environment. That it’s going to have plants that bloom from season to season. I don’t want industrial – I don’t want to see cape natal plum. In my family, we say Rhaphiolepis. I don’t know how it’s actually supposed to be pronounced but most – in answer to your question about which personality – sounded a little bit like do you want your kid to be upstanding or recessive. I wanted civic but I made something – I do not mean the unfolded Jack Tar building that we saw in these elevations. Avenidas is a great civic building. Redwood City, City Hall, is a great civic building and a completely different time period. I would say this building is not our trunk aided Edward Durrell Stone that was built to be armored and we’ve gradually taken down some of the curtain walls or the walls to repel people but it’s not a great success. I’d like to be less of a heat sink than it is now. I want to know that it’s at least as heavily wooded as it is now. As you point out, it’s mostly in the peripheral so that may be quite possible but to me civic means beautiful. It means that you are thinking at least 50-years ahead. It means that you know we’re not going to have adequate maintenance budgets in the future. I’m really interested in the public space and its landscaping. To me, one of the markers of a successful civic building is moderately expensive landscaping. It used to be rose gardens in front of court houses and I don’t know what we do now but something that requires actual gardening or that perhaps over time becomes fairly low maintenance but these are plants that do a multiplicity of things. I agree that wooden lattices are never going to survive. I think that glass – I’m sorry, metal screening could be very effective. I’m very concerned about having a few – a huge blank wall along – is it Sherman? Yeah. For the garage and we have not been noticeably successful in creating public art in this district that is widely viewed as attractive. The thought of how expensive a piece of that size would be. I mean we’ve had people – we’ve had our Art Commission telling us how expensive something 20 x 30 would be and so the thought of having effective public art here; I’m highly skeptical. It seems to me to be unlikely but I can imagine a terrific design. Thank you. Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you. Chair Lew: So, thank you for your presentation and I think I agree with Peter. I think that the way that you’ve broken up the three concepts for us is – was the right way to start your project. I was wondering if you could go to your – if you have a slide of your opportunity constraints diagram which was page – well, maybe either page two or three in your packet. Mr. Cusenbery: Not currently in the slide show; my apologies. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Lew: Yeah, that’s fine. Mr. Cusenbery: I’ll put this one up and I can speak… Chair Lew: Yeah, that’s fine. I just wanted to make some comments on this. One – let’s see, I’ve got – I guess I have seven comments on this particular one. So, one is that I think – I consider Birch as a gateway for people who are driving from Page Mill Road and Birch used to like a little skinny 40-foot wide street and it was widened with a median in there but I think that’s important just to note that it’s a gateway. You’ve mentioned it but it doesn’t really show in your diagram. Then on Ash Street, one block over, it’s been partially widened so near California Avenue it’s sixty and then it goes down to fifty and then it goes down to forty and that issue has come up on the Visa building across the street from your garage. That’s something out there that’s in mind of the neighbors. Two is the – the third is on Park Boulevard, that’s our bicycle boulevard. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct. Chair Lew: We’re proposing – we’ve been proposing I think that there are improvements to that – the length of that and that doesn’t really show up on your diagram. On some of the new projects, we’ve been doing bulb-outs and whatnot on Park to make it more pedestrian friendly as well. Then four is that there’s the Palo Alto Central Condominiums. Its mixed-use conidium’s on the other side of Park and I just want to highlight that because I think when you had the previous… Mr. Cusenbery: We’ve got these rights here, I believe. Chair Lew: Yeah and then when you had the – your previous Public Safety Building on the Page Mills site, the issue of light and noise from a building that is being used 24-hours a day comes up so I would imagine that that’s going to come up later. I would like to just note that we do have that use across the street. The fifth one is the Paseos and I think you’ve noted that on one of your drawings. So right, there are two. One near the Starbucks and one near the FedEx, yeah. Mr. Cusenbery: This one right here, right? Chair Lew: Yeah – no, I think we’re… Mr. Cusenbery: Over here? Chair Lew: Yeah, it’s that one. Yeah. The other things are like a little courtyard in back of the Palo Alto pizza. In downtown Mountain View they have two public garages in a similar location to this, with an alley and paseos and at the end of the paseos, they were able to put in stairs and elevators so at the end of the axis. I realize that that’s not necessarily – it’s not easy to do in this particular situation but in the -- this particular configuration that you have but it seems to me to work in Mountain View. People do use them. It does make those spaces less – what do you call it? Less – it makes them more desirable it seems to me and if there’s any way to do that, I would try to do it. Stanford Shopping Center has a garage that has those amenities and I don’t think they are on – my recollection is that they are not perfectly on axis. I think that you can still do something with sidewalks or whatnot or planters to make it more desirable. Six is the existing trees, so I think I understand from the packet that you have here, that no trees are being proposed to be retained. Then I did look at the arborist report, which was not in our packet but it’s on the City’s website and there are a lot of trees and some of them recommended for or some of them are – I forgot the terminology – protected? Protected trees. Normally I would like – I think that’s a decision that happens later but I would like – ideally, I would like to see it now just so that it’s on everybody’s – so everybody understands that’s on the table and that’s a constraint; just so that we all know. I think most of the Board Members do go to the site and so they’ve seen the trees. Then the seventh – the last item is the alley, Jacaranda Lane, and on other projects in Palo Alto, the width of the City of Palo Alto Page 11 alley comes up. Trash that is being used by the existing business. Having a safe and attractive place to walk or for employees to take breaks in the back alleys of the restaurants or the back doors of the restaurants. I did see that there are mailboxes but it seems to me that there are a whole bunch of things happening there and I think that the design needs to take those into account. I mentioned the public garages in Mountain View and they’ve done it both ways. On one of the garages, they just built right up to the property line because they were squishing everything in and it’s pretty mean. On one of them, they set it back and have planters and street trees and a plaza or a – like pavers, decorative pavers. It looks kind of nice. It doesn’t look great but I don’t see people using it so I think it’s right for a discussion to see – it doesn’t make sense. It seems like you have an extra width over the – on the parking garage lot. I mean it seems like you guys have a little bit of extra room based on the parking isle modular; like it seems like you have a little bit of room. Mr. Cusenbery: On the Jacaranda side, is that what you are referring to? Chair Lew: Well, just on the width of the lot is… Mr. Cusenbery: On the width, yeah. Right. Chair Lew: …(inaudible) is 130 and the parking isle is 60-feet and you have structure and you have two aisles, right? So, you have some – you have a little bit of room to do something. Ok, so that’s all that I have on that particular sheet. For – I have some comments for all of the schemes and I think I’m in agreement with some of the other Board Members here about the civicness. I think I’m – I was actually to look for something that’s more civic than what you are showing. I don’t like the ramp going to Birch Street at all. The – at that intersection – you know because California is a dead-end street, there’s lots of zig-zagging cars and there’s a lot of turning at that intersection and to put a ramp there is – seems to me to be highly undesirable. I do like the one-story portion facing Park. I think that seems to match the Palo Alto Pizza Company building and it brings the scale down. I’m not crazy about the blocky – the height and the length of the garage on Sherman. It seems to me that if you have like a 300-foot long façade, I would normally like to see some sort of break where you make three different façade components into one façade; break it up. I have mixed feelings on the plaza. I think generally I think that adding a plaza is desirable. Now in the context of California Avenue and Mayfield, I’ve actually gone back – not just particularly for this project but I’ve actually gone back and looked at the original plans and the old maps and the Sanborn maps, to try to figure out what happened because it’s not the best layout and I always wondered why isn’t there a Court House square like you would see in Sonoma or San Luis Obispo? All those great California towns that have a great Court House Plaza and then look at what happened there and it seems like we totally missed the boat on that. I think trying to add some sort of civic space is highly desirable there. Mr. Cusenbery: If I could ask just for a follow-up clarification? So, you said mixed feelings on the plaza. If you could expand that. Which way (inaudible) (crosstalk)… Chair Lew: Yeah, I will (inaudible) I have some comments on each of the concepts and yeah. Then I have another comment just for all the schemes and that is lighting on the top level of the garage. It may be better if you have photovoltaics because then the lights are underneath the photovoltaics. Having – if you don’t have the light – if you don’t have the PVs and then you’ve got lights all around the garage, it seems to me that would be a major negative for the neighborhood. On the three concepts that you have, on concept one, I have a reservation about using that approach on the garage just based on the size of the garage. I like the idea but then if I’m looking at doing that on a – that size of a building, I guess I wonder if that’s enough. We’ve used it on the Webster Street garage here in downtown and the wood rotted eventually and had to be replaced. I’m not sure that we ever replaced the planters, I don’t think – I think the planters ended up disappearing. Wood is high maintenance but I would say that we have – we do have Terracotta lattice work on some new buildings here in the downtown area and that actually looks pretty nice. So, I would say that might be a possibility. I’ve looked at some of the other City garages in Palo Alto and we don’t – the City isn’t so good about maintaining the planters. I see a lot of dirt and half planted planters and I’m a little bit worried about that – about the maintenance about that. Then I would City of Palo Alto Page 12 say that there’s a garage as Stanford Shopping Center, which is four times the size of your proposed garage here. They’ve been able to maintain the planters and green screen really well and it does look nice and it makes it better. I think that should be an – I think that some sort of planters should be an option and it really may make the – this much – it may – some planters may make it very desirable on the Sherman and the Jacaranda Lane side. I think I do like the arcades that you are proposing on Ash and the staircase on Birch. On concept two, I share Wynne’s concern about the mural location. It seems awfully big and it seems like not a great vantage point for viewing. Then there would be street trees presumably that might obscure the artwork so I don’t know – I’m not sure if that works. On the massing, you know we do have architects who are doing these sorts of Schindler-like forms on larger buildings and I’m not sure if it works or not. I think that you’re very skilled at manipulating form but I just wonder does it really work on a bigger scale? That’s just an open question. It seems to me that doing has – it gives you opportunity – doing that approach gives you the opportunity to break a big box up into smaller forms that would better fit in with the neighboring existing buildings on California Avenue so I think that’s worth considering. On the plaza on your concept two, you know I’m not an expert on plazas but I was – I’ve been doing some research into the New York City code on plaza design and also some other urban designers. They have recommendations for the plaza and it seems to me that this one doesn’t – they generally recommend having – like if you have a path from the edge of the sidewalk to the building, then that path goes in straight at least eighty percent of the way. It seems to me that this is chopping it up too much in this particular scheme. On concept three, when I saw your – saw the images that you're proposing, it reminded me of – what’s his name? I think I wrote his name down. [Rafael Nadal], he has a civic building in Spain – a Town Hall building in Spain, which I’ve always liked. It’s a building facing a plaza and I think what really makes that – what separates that building from what you are proposing just diagrammatically is that it has porch space. It has the indoor/outdoor space and I think that that’s really the key because you get the light and shadow and it gives it the sense of having a Greek colonnade but it’s not Corinthian columns. I think it’s also important to have the indoor/outdoor space because otherwise, if you just have vertical – narrow, vertical slot windows, it can look like a jail. There’s the famous or infamous jail in Chicago, which has the little – instead of having bars on the windows, it’s just skinny slot windows so nobody – they are so skinny that nobody could ever break the glass and escape. Oakland has one too, off of I-80 freeway and I think that would just be the worst direction for this building to have something look like that. I don’t think that – you’re not doing that exactly but I wouldn’t want it to go that way. We did – somebody did do this on the – this approach on our Blooming days building at Stanford Shopping Center and the only caution that I have there is that they had a design architect. Then they had an architect director and things fell through the cracks between the two and then they were coming to the ARB to try to solve all of them; all of the odds and ends. The interior and the exterior never matched and it was just a battle. It was a very difficult situation so I would want the – if you do that approach, I would want to make sure that it’s all resolved and allow for change. I would image that the insides of this could change over time. If you (inaudible) over 100-years, the insides will change so I wouldn’t get to specific about the programming inside of the police station. On the plaza design, I just wanted to mention the things that I am interested in. So, one is south facing, which I think you have. Visibility for openness in the sense of safety and that’s been an issue on some of our parks here in downtown; Lytton Plaza, [Codel] Plaza. The sense of safety and the openness where an issue. The City has removed some of the barriers there to make them more open so I do want to mention that because I know you still have to do your security issues but we still want it to be – have a sense of openness. They are saying that on the New York City code, that along the sidewalk within the first 15- feet of the sidewalk, that it’s at least half open. So, we will see how that works with your safety requirements. Try to get – try to keep the plaza level less than 2-feet above the sidewalk level. It seems like you have a couple steps, which is what? A foot or two? Mr. Cusenbery: It goes up two-feet – the building is two feet above the sidewalk. Chair Lew: Ok, so I think that’s – by the New York City code, that’s the maximum. Keep the stairs low, right? Low, shallow height steps; more like 4-inches instead of 7-inches. Paths be 8-feet wide at least and extending eighty percent into the depth of the plaza and to minimize obstructions. It seems like there are air vents for the garages, you have your driveway ramp for operational vehicles, all that kind of stuff so try to minimize those or design them well. I think Wynne would be interested in this, New York City City of Palo Alto Page 13 outlines six different types of seating and then it says – it gives you how many different types of seating that you have. The different types are moveable, individual, fixed, seat walls, plant walls, steps so anyway, we don’t have the New York City code but I think the point is, is that we’re interested in a – to make the plaza usable. You want to attract a diversity of people and uses at all times of day and night. I think some of your schemes do that; some more than others. I don’t know but I think that’s what we are interested in going forward and to see how that works. Ok, any other – that’s all that I have. Any other comments from the Board Members? No? Did you have any follow ups that you want to… Mr. Cusenbery: My main follow up is to thank you very much. This is very articulate and helpful suggestions and it’s exactly what we’re hoping at this point. In a way, this is a weather balloon and your feedback has been very helpful so thank you. Chair Lew: Great, we look forward to seeing this come forward. Board Member Furth: I have one question on the communications tower, which is why don’t we enter into a lease with the County and stick it on their building. I mean that’s a very – that’s more recessed location and closer to higher raised buildings. It’s our sister public agency. Mr. Cusenbery: For the record, this – these views have the 135-feet so you see the tip there. It’s a little hard to see but you see the tip there and you see the height here so this does represent the 135-feet. Where are the previous ones that I showed you did not? Mr. Raschke: If I may, Los Altos and Mountain View both have very similar towers to what we’re looking at so if you look on San Antonio Road at Edith’s, you can see it from there. It is setback – you know Los Altos has the orchard around their civic area and Mountain Views is right on Evelynn Avenue right by their police station. They create sort of a microwave ring that encompasses Santa Clara County and it’s very important that we have this tower but it will be difficult to hide it. Chair Lew: I pass by both of those towers frequently. They are on my regular routine and every once in a while, I look at them and am like oh, that’s ugly. Then ninety-nine percent of the time I pass by and I’m thinking about what I am eating for dinner or whatever and I don’t notice them. We’ll see it when it comes. Board Member Furth: I don’t think any of us think you can camouflages except with very high – you know with stealth technology on a 135-foot tower. That’s not the question, the question is, of the available places that you can put it, what is the best? Mr. Cusenbery: My takeaway from the conversation was integrating it into the design such that it’s there but it appears intentional as opposed to just screened. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. Action Items 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio Avenue [15PLN-00314]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Commercial/Office Buildings at 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue and Construction of Two, Five-Story Hotels (Courtyard by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by Marriott with 143 rooms). The Site Will Include Surface and Two Levels of Basement Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for public comment from March 27, 2017 to May 10, 2017. Zoning District: CS. For more information, contact the project planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Lew: Ok, are we ready for the next item or do we need to take a break to set up the next applicant? Ok, we’re going to take a very short minute coffee break; 5-minutes. Item number three which is a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter; 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue. Recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of a Major Architectural Review to allow the demolition of two existing commercial/office buildings at 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue and construction of two, five-story hotels (Courtyard by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by Marriott with 143 rooms). The site will include surface and two levels of basement parking. Environmental Assessment is a draft EIR was circulated for public comment from March 27, 2017, to May 10, 2017. The zone district is CS. We have Sheldon Ah Sing here as our planner. Welcome. Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing, Project Planner: Yes, thank you. I’ve provided a PowerPoint presentation and the applicant is also here with their PowerPoint presentation. You’ve done a good job with explaining my first slide but just to kind of build upon that, that in the draft Environmental Impact Report, we do have one unavoidable impact and that’s to the eligible historic resource that’s on this site. That’s why we have the EIR in the first place but I also wanted to mention that the property in the City of Mountain View, that’s the rear so to just put that in context. Then you did mention about the basement parking. There’s a full one level basement and then the second level is a partial on the site and it represents about seventeen percent of the site. They are here because of the architectural review and as well as they have a parking adjustment that’s up to twenty percent for valet parking. In the basement parking area, they do have valet spaces that take up the drive isle so there would be a valet operation for this site and that was included in your packet on how that’s going to work out. There were a number of meetings on the project. There were former ones here but also there where meetings that where outside of this venue. I met with some key people from the neighbors across the street when the project initially came in. As well as the applicant did host a neighborhood meeting on site during the course of this project. There was a preliminary ARB, there was two formal ARB meetings to date, as well as there was an environmental scoping meeting for the Environmental Impact Report. All long, there were comments made by the public and also by the Board and Staff as well on how to revise the project to make it more consistent with the City’s findings. At the most recent Board Meeting, the Board did raise some comments and made a motion on that. Those are to revise the three-story glass element on both buildings, as well as provided warmer colors for the AC building; drawing upon some of the local context. Provided elevations with some mature trees and acknowledging what that would look like. A better-defined side setbacks. Adding more plantings to the terraces. They were also to provide some depth and interest by extending the cornices into window details along the side elevations as well. Then there was a comment to add some benches so the applicant, in their presentation, will describe how they’ve revised the project to address those concerns but I did want to mention that we are supportive of the changes that they made. We would like to have the project come back to the subcommittee to address the landscaping however and that’s a condition of approval. I did want to mention in the Staff report that just addressing the landscaping as well. They are – the applicant has added cypress trees to the side. I know in the Staff report we mentioned a certain height. We did want to recognize some of the constraints that the building is on a podium so given the roots and the trees, you’re probably looking at more of just over two-stories for the height of those trees. Instead of – I think we had a much larger number so just to have that more realistic. Some of the key issues that we’ve had throughout the project was we’ve had esthetics and dealing with some of the mass and what the building would look like. Having to deal with traffic, particularly long San Antonio. Then hydrology, we had some comments about the fact that there’s a basement so dewatering of the site. So, esthetics kind of goes into both realms of the project, as well as the Environmental Impact Report. Traffic is mostly with the Environmental Impact Report, as well as hydrology. Just to mention about these issues, they are all really good issues by the public. Very synced issues. None of them where really kind of out there so I just want to acknowledge that they were all really good comments. To go into esthetics a little bit, just given the context of the area, it really includes a lot of low scale development and a much more older development. However, the site is in transition and the code does allow for up to .4 FAR for most buildings. Except hotels, there’s an incentive so to speak for more FAR; up to 2.0 and that’s what’s the project that we have here today. This project does maximize on that and would include the two, five-stories with the underground parking. San Antonio Road you have 24-foot special setbacks on both sides. It’s a divided road with four lanes and a median so there is some separation and streetscape is quite wide. What this exhibit is supposed to demonstrate is City of Palo Alto Page 15 what the existing FAR is there along San Antonio for that block. You can see that .4 is what the maximum standard is typically for commercial. Of course, the (inaudible) the hotel difference so most of these sites are below that. There are some a little above that. There’s a Court Campus that’s kind of off this picture here. That’s a bigger project so you can see where there’s a lot of potential in this area still if people wanted to redevelop. It’s an area that we would consider that’s in transition. One of the challenges is for this site has been that you have two hotels and two different brands. Normally, you see on the site you can work with one building and maybe you can kind of put it in the middle and we’ve had some discussion about that and the applicants have responded to that. What we are trying to do is how do we address the edges? The front has been the major issue there and of course the applicant has addressed that by having these terraces to the front and step that back. This exhibit shows the cross section, of course, between – with San Antonio and there’s also some additional landscaping on the opposite side where the residential buildings are. It’s shows what that distance is and the relationship between the proposed building and the existing residential buildings. Here’s some of the front elevations of the buildings and also the size, just showing how the articulation looks from a plan view. Again, here are some of the sides of both the buildings and the applicant will go into a little more detail on that. We believe that the applicant has addressed the edges and concerns regarding aesthetics in this case. CEQA is the other part of the component that we have to get into the required under State law and an Environmental Impact Report was completed for the project. We initially started with the scoping meeting and notice of preparation. Then we had the draft EIR circulated starting in March through the beginning of May. The report identified some areas where there were significant impacts but they could be mitigated except for the cultural resource. So, you had air quality, biology, cultural and hazards and only cultural resources was an unavoidable impact. There’s a mid-century modern building that is on the site and that building was deemed to be eligible for listing on the California Registry due to its age and sort of the character of the architecture. So, of course, there is an impact of that. There is not mitigation when the proposal is to demolish that structure. So, where we are in the EIR process. We have the final EIR that was published yesterday online. We have a mitigation monitoring reporting program that speaks to all the mitigation measures and a timing of those. We have statements of overwrite considerations for the unavoidable significant impact. This will all go to the City Council for their certification of adoption of the project so if the Board makes a recommendation today, then we would be looking at the substiquate meeting for the Council to consider these issues. Now going back to one of the other key issues of traffic. So, this is all standard types of methodology that’s used in – when we look at what is a significant impact? So, the first thing that you would do is to have the trip generation and those are by use and the standard is by the ITE. That was used – the standard was used for the City, as well as the State and United States. There is a sample that they use to come up with what that ratio is and so that was applied. There was a study area of twelve intersections that were done and the level of service is the metric that is used to determine if there’s a significant impact or not. That’s usually an amount of delay that’s at an intersection. There’s agrarian that goes between letter A and F so think of it like it you’re at a grade school or something. A is free flowing and F is a gridlock situation. An acceptable level for the City is D and E is for accounting management program intersection and none of the intersections where below that standard. There definingly is traffic out there. We can acknowledge that at peak hours but none of it was below the standard as acceptable by the City. In addition to that, there was a comment about queuing lines for left turns and again, that was deemed to be acceptable ninety-five percent of the time, which is – there are no CEQA threshold for queuing so that was an (inaudible) standard that is acceptable. Then having to do with hydrology, the fine EIR did clarify the depth of the excavation to 18- feet for a portion of (inaudible). I mentioned that seventeen percent is that second level and the location area is not near any structures so there wouldn’t be a concern regarding subsidence. The majority of this would be dewatered to a depth of less than 10-feet and would be – the dewatering would also be consistent with the City’s new ordinance regarding dewatering. In conclusion, the project complies with the objective development standards with the exception of parking and they are going for that exception. The ARB did identify a number of issues at previous meetings but many of those concerns have been addressed and we’re asking that the project come back to the subcommittee regarding the landscaping. Then we request that the project receive a recommendation from the Board today for the certification of the Final EIR, as well as the approval of the project to the City Council. That concludes my presentation and I would be happy to answer any question that you have. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: Chair, if I may? I want to thank Sheldon for that summary recap and sort of setting the stage for where we are. I just wanted to also bring the Board’s attention to packet page 133. As Sheldon noted, the Board has had a lot of dialog on this item. You last met on it about 2 months ago and as we’ve been trying to do more recently, is get pretty specific direction in our motions and this meeting is that you’ve considered a lot of issues and the direction that you gave us about 2 months ago was to focus on – it looks like one, two, three, four, five discreet issues that are on packet page 133. It is our hope that you would focus on those items that the applicant went back and reevaluated. Thank you. Chair Lew: Ok, I think now is the time for the applicant presentation and also, I do want to mention that we do have a lot of speakers on this item and so we’re going to limit the time. We normally allow 5-minutes per speaker but I am going to limit it to three because otherwise, we would be here for well over an hour just on the public comments. Also, are there any disclosures by the Board Members? This is – I have one. I talked to architect Randy Popp on, let’s see, May 8th for just like a minute or two. He was just asking for clarification on whether or not the Board wanted to see the building – if the Board wanted the buildings to be different—more different than what we had seen at our last hearing. Ok, welcome and you have 10-minutes. Mr. Greg LeBon: My name is Greg LeBon. I am Vice President of design with T2 Development. Good morning. Thank you for having us here today. We’re very excited about the progress that this project has transformed over the last 2-years. This project, as Randy Popp will show you, has really been enriched by this process so we want to thank you for that. I know we’re on limited time so I’m going to pass this off to Randy and he’ll tell you. Mr. Randy Popp: Thanks, Greg. Alright, so Randy Popp, architect. I’ll just in here really quickly and mention that although Sheldon had sort of summarized this. I actually went back and watched the video of our last discussion in April and was very precise about listening to what your comments were and so this is a good list. It’s summarized properly by Sheldon but a couple more refinements there. I’ll echo Greg’s statement. It was a very productive meeting in April and appreciate how precise you all where. In the next few minutes we will touch on all these items but first I want to just give us a quick reminder and perhaps a great example of how this project can be successful. Look where we began and what this was like, then compare this to today. Just for reference, it’s virtually the same number of rooms and the same FAR. Let’s just dig right in on the San Antonio frontage. You asked us about the full height glass and full height glass is not just common but it’s really desirable and what we’ve done is extended the floor plates across to avoid the impression of a multi-story interior space. It’s a little bit concealed by the trees here but we wanted to really be honest about what this building is doing on the inside as well. Through a combination of some plan adjustments and extending the cornice cantilever to really the practical limit of the material, we’ve added interest and contrast, breaking down the massing further and creating some strong shadow lines. The Courtyard with its angled planes and rhythmic spacing of fenestration is in contrast to the more sleek and regular forms on the AC, that you will see in a moment. The variation in detail extends to the materials as well. I have a rendering for you of this, that’s a little higher quality because I wanted you to really be able to see the materials and to visually observe that. It’s a little bit hard to do electronically here. The Trespa panels are designed to reference wood paneling and they are interspersed with hand trowel plaster. From a distance, it will appear smooth but up close it’s going to feel very refined and much like stone. Metal trim now painted to pick up on the dark green and the Trespa has replaced the stark white stripes that were on the building previously. So, color variation, balcony railings, sunshades, and window divisions all contribute to a design that is intended to break down the massing into some very discreet elements. These two buildings are a bit like siblings. Some similar features but otherwise, pretty unique. Our goal is a cohesive campus that’s sharing amenities. The AC is more geometric and simple. It’s meant to appear more sleek and streamlined. Fenestrations organized into groupings, while architectural elements box out and frame portions of the building as a different approach to breaking the massing into easily comprehended components. Colors have all been adjusted and refined. While our electronic images struggle a little bit to exhibit this, the sample that you have is a color reference from a mature leaf of coast live oak. As with the Courtyard, we’re using the hand troweled plaster but reflective of the brand, we have clean metal panels to compliment the clear City of Palo Alto Page 17 anodized aluminum window frames. Similar overhangs extensions at the terraces create those same generous shadows and the contrast that we are looking for. Just getting a little bit closer, we want – with some enlarged views placed side by side, this helps to illustrate the points I’ve just relied on. Overhangs, elements, window forms, and materials are all in support of our architectural goals. One last look at the more urban focus pallet of the AC and I put that oak tree there as a reference. We really have attempted to manage those colors in a different way. Where they were very, very saturated before, they are a little bit more muted now and the greens and other colors are lifted from natural elements. The much more natural and maybe sort of earthy courtyard pallet. What I would like to do now is a shift to the pedestrian experience at the front and I’ll invite [Gary Laymon], who is our landscape architect to come give you some information about that. Mr. Gary Laymon: Good morning. We’re excited to be back here. We received some great comments last time and we’ve been able to build upon that to create a really wonderful landscape pallet for the project. One of the things that we wanted to do as create more buffering between -- long the – excuse me – long the San Antonio frontage by taking the existing street trees, which are a south live oak species and to amplify that to make a denser, larger scale trees canopy across that whole façade there. So, we’ve increased a number of trees and the size of those trees to really help reinforce that feeling overall. Then the ground plane, there’s a lot of native plant materials that have been used, as well as other flowering perineal sort of color opportunities to be able to make those – that area very inviting. We’ve included seating along the street frontage, along the public sidewalk to be able to provide a more inviting opportunity there for people to be able to sit down, go to the café that’s in the hotel complex. To be able to stop and take a break along the street frontage and it’s kind of within the canopy of the oak trees so it’s – that’s a really nice amenity. We’ve had a lot of detail in looking at the site utilities and making sure that they are well hidden behind other (inaudible) walls but just really creating a very rich environment there. You can see that we’ve also added in the plan view here, the Courtyard – the patio terraces that are on the upper levels. We’ve been able to add plant materials to those areas as well to make them very warm and inviting. Providing filtered views on both, provide privacy as well as green scaling elements for those areas. We think that those will be really successful spaces. Mr. Popp: I’ll just step back to the terraces just for a second and mention that this is really a direct result of trying to reduce the height perception but still taking advantage of the benefits that this height can provide. We’re expecting these to be highly desirable spaces for the views. We anticipate being able to see Hoover Tower and beyond to the foothills here. The question about the size of the building being articulated enough; I sure think so. Even stripped of the landscaping as they are in these renderings so that you can really see the buildings, the massing is detailed and buried and interesting. Where the Hilton Home and Suites is a boxy and simple building and you know, I can say that and be critical because I was the concept design for that. I hope you can read the added layer of character that we’ve incorporated here. Forms that draw across floors, knitting elements together, color placement and varied window systems are all contributing and so it’s even easier to see as we get closer. Plane that pushes in and out and architectural elements places to create shadow and interest. Interesting geometric forms to create relief and enhance the differentiation between the brands. So, let’s bring the landscape back to the discussion. Mr. Laymon: One of the areas that we really focused on was looking at the side elevations of the building and taking a look at how the building materials were changing, how the recesses worked with the building and materials. We wanted to make sure that we had a large landscape presents along this side elevations but in further to response to your comments, looking at how we could articulate the landscape more so that the landscape and the building were engaged and there was a dialog happening there. Now the main thing that we did was we introduced Italian cypress trees as a second layer to the Italian buckthorn planting that is along the property line, in addition to the property line fence. That creates this nice layering of materials. It’s all evergreen but it will be different in texture and color and we’ve chosen plant materials that are very fast growing so that these impacts will be manifested soon than later. We think that’s really been a successful addition to the project. One of the things that we tried to do where every possible was to incorporate more native plant materials as a part of the landscape design. We’re at an urban context within the podium area, which makes it somewhat challenged to be able to use actual City of Palo Alto Page 18 native plant materials in those areas but we’re using drought tolerate materials throughout. So, we know that we are going to be well below the thresholds of water use and such. We think that we are creating actually a significant amount of habitat, both in these native species, trees, shrubs and ground covers. As well as related species that are also supportive of wildlife habitat conditions so we think it’s going to be a good neighbor in that regard. Mr. Popp: Sheldon didn’t mention this in his presentation but I’ll just bring it up. This was a comment that came up at the last time and it’s something that the public has asked as to why do we need more hotel rooms? I’ll just share with you that while the area has seen some pretty significant commercial growth, the demand for hotels has matched that but in the 12-years since Hyatt Ricky’s was taken down, we’re still 77 rooms short of that number. We spoke with the treasury division at the City to get some data and it’s pretty clear that although development has continued, it just hasn’t kept pace and so that’s part of why this is so important to do. Just for reference, a fairly conservative analysis has the TOT for this 294- room development at an 85% occupancy at roughly 3.6 million dollars in a 3-year period. If I can have just another moment. I’ll just end by saying we thank you and I’m happy to respond or address any comments that you might have. We’re looking forward the discussion today. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you. Are there any Board Member questions? Otherwise, we’ll go to the public comment. Peter? Board Member Baltay: Yes, I wonder if we could get some clarification. The Staff is requesting that we have landscaping work be put on as a subcommittee item. What more exactly is that that means, Sheldon? Board Member Gooyer: I thought that was more geared toward last time when we said that we could do that. I don’t know if that’s… Mr. Ah Sing: Ok, so we have condition – in Attachment B and its condition number seven. Packet page number 147, condition seven. The applicant returns to the Board subcommittee with a revised landscape plan that reflects the regional indigenous, drought-resistant plant material required by the findings. Board Member Baltay: That’s the entire landscape package for the whole project or is it just the frontage of San Antonio Road? Mr. Ah Sing: It would be the whole project. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Lew: Ok, so we have lots of public speakers. You are limited to 3-minutes each and I’ll give you the order of maybe the first three speakers. I have Thomas [Rosline]. I have a Storkmen, W., I don’t have a last name for that or first name for that and [Maradee Taylor.] If you would come up to the microphone, please. Great, welcome. Mr. Thomas Rosline: Thank you for the opportunity to address the Review Board and I am sure that you are going to hear a lot of comments so first off, thank you for considering all those and for the work that you have been putting into this. I’ll just start with a very simple comment on the Architectural Review Board Staff report. If you look at finding number two, part E, it concludes that this project enhances living conditions on the site if it includes residential uses so that does not and in the adjacent residential areas. As someone in the adjacent residential area, I’d have to dispute that enhancement because just by the nature of it, this project will increase the traffic, there will be noise and population. The level of service DNE doesn’t seem acceptable to me and I don’t know why we would be considering acceptable here. Those are my comments. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. We have W. Storkmen. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Mr. W. Storkmen: Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you. Mr. Storkmen: I wasn’t aware of Palo Alto until the 19 – mid-1930s. At that time, I was a younger man and my uncle was here and that moved us to Palo Alto. I knew then that I was going to move to Palo Alto and I have been a resident of Palo Alto since 1954, down at the southern end. Oregon Avenue created the haves and the have-nots in Palo Alto. If you live in the north, you are the have. If you are in the south, you have not, which was a distressing thing for us in the southern part. My concern is not too many. I notice that Google uses Charleston, Leghorn, and Middlefield as exits out of getting in and out of – from their work on the eastern side of Bay Shore. It’s heavily trafficked and each of those three left-hand turns is stacked up with cars from 3 o’clock until about 6 o’clock of those people going home. Coming down from the north you can get off and the worst part about the whole thing is in order to get to this hotel, you have to drive past it, you have to get into that left lane that the Google people get in and make that left hand turn to get to the hotel. Unless you come from the further south and approach it from one of the – Middlefield, from that way. So, this is a very disturbing thing and it’s ugly and it seems like our City Council has no respect for the people who live in the area. There were masses amount of people that -- I gave out 400 flyers and I never heard any objection to what I was trying to encourage that we should let this project be built here. There is a disadvantage right now because they all have to make a left-hand turn unless they go past San Antonio and come back on Middlefield to get to the hotel. This is a disaster. I don’t understand why we are even thinking about a project like this. Oh, goodbye. Chair Lew: You still have a minute, if you want. (Crosstalk) You have one minute. Mr. Storkmen: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. The next speaker is Janet… [Ms. Mara D. Taylor]: [Mara Taylor] Chair Lew: …oh wait, I am sorry. [Mara D Taylor] and then the… Ms. Taylor: Yes, thank you. I live at the Green House and I’ve lived there since ’74. I’ve been a resident in Palo Alto since ’55 so I’ve been here a long time and I wanted to say that I appreciate your consideration of the project near Cal. Ave because it looks like you’re really going into some detail. This one, I think it’s like it’s completely black and white. You’re not considering any of this. The very points that they are trying to make that are so positive are clearly not positive at all. They present a lot of stats which are great about this and it’s good that we have stats to make – to keep everybody in line but none of these are realistic. The building looks like a prison by their plans or like it came there with much effort and plopped down because it couldn’t go on. It’s really, really, is an eyesore. The traffic is probably the main thing and I have something that I took last night when I was coming home and I want to give it to you because the picture is worth a thousand words. Whether it’s in the morning when they are coming work, at noon time when they are going off and doing other things while they have some time if they actually take noon any more. Also, in the evening and this is – there’s one picture of it where it’s congested and it does show one of the Palo Alto Plumbing. They have to go around and switch around so that’s one example of the businesses that are already there that are having trouble in negotiating the Leghorn/San Antonio intersection. I marked it Leghorn here, Green House here and you can see that it’s completely packed. There’s not a place where there’s not a car and then the site is that people have pulled into the intersection because they want to try to get through the light, which is against the law but there’s no place to go. They are stuck there. At Leghorn, I’ve thought that I’ll go around Leghorn to the back entrance. I’ve sat through three different lights just trying to get through because of all the traffic backed up. This hotel has no back exit ok? Whether that is good or bad but how are they going to bring all the stuff that they need to maintain the hotel? They are going to have to bring it in the front. They can’t exit so the congestion is going to be three times as worse. Plus, the fact that all of the stats that they gave on the traffic, whether the flow was this way or that way. In reality, it’s not flowing now and City of Palo Alto Page 20 the hotel is not even there. Can you imagine what it’s going to be afterward? Plus, the fact that my little picture has the theater part of the Jewish Center, which you cannot – you can’t help but see. They presented the fact that you can have the esthetics – oh, you can see Hoover Tower. The mere thought of that, from my home, since ’74 is that the aesthetics are going to (inaudible) for the people on the top floor, which already defines that it’s too high if they can see Hoover Tower from San Antonio Road. I mean, it’s really a horrible concept all the way around. Every positive that they have had is, in reality, a negative. If I – I am going to stop talking and I would like to present this to you to just have a looksy. I put one and two. Thank you very much. Chair Lew: Thank you. The next speaker is Janet – there we go. Janet Kale and followed by Nancy Martin and Lu Lu. It’s sticky sometimes. Ms. Janet Kale: Again, thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to present our consideration and our thoughts to you before this project is actually completely done and buried or built and erected. We – you’ve heard a number of issues. You’ve heard from residents before and I’m thinking that you are going to be hearing from a number of more residents this afternoon or this morning about their considerations and their concerns of a five-story building on San Antonio Road that does not fit in with the Community. It is not residential in the sense that we live there as residents who are actually living, working and paying our taxes to you and to the City and contributing as individuals in this area. You’re going to hear all about how the traffic impacts, you’re going to hear the environmental impact, you’re going to hear all kinds of things. I think you’re taking far more consideration with the police station that’s in Palo Alto and considering what the impact of that is going to be on the surrounding community than you are of us. You’ve heard that we are the “stepsisters” community of Palo Alto. That has been in my mind for a number of years. I’ve lived here since 1974. I’ve lived at the Green House all of that time basically and I have been on the Board of the Homeowners Association for 40 of those years. I have been the Board President of the last number of ‘x’ years and it must be at least 20 or 25 at this point. One keeps getting reelected if you don’t do something drastic. I’d like of all of you to just take a hard look at where we live. Take a look at the community, take a look at the environment. I many not have all the politically correct buzz words to use to give you the appropriate information but one of the things that bothers me is a five-story building directly across from the rising sun, the rising moon, the stars at night. I use to be able to see of those before the trees got pretty high and now the trees get high and I wait until they – the moon comes up above the trees and the sun rises. I don’t always see that in the morning but when – you could. It’s going to impact our environment and our living conditions. A building of this sort is much more appropriate to be built on El Camino. If you drive from Sunny Vale up through Redwood City, you’re going to see all of these wonderful buildings that are square, angular, stuck right on the street and I’ll grant you that they are setting back this building and putting some plantings in front of it but when I hear them say I’m planting something and it’s going to be big and grow, I’m afraid that poor plant is not going to survive 10-years. It’s going to be so compacted in an area that it doesn’t give it the proper environment to mature and grow and be a healthy plant for that particular area. Again, I would like to ask you and Mr. Lew, I believe that I am correct, you have family members who have lived in this area. Walk in their moccasins, eat at their dining room table, look out their windows, what are you going to see? If you only want to see a five-story building directly across from you, which is going to be taller than those on San Antonio Road, Carmel Village, the ones that are going in right across the street from that. Just put yourself in our place for a minute or two and see how you would feel if you had to look at a five-story building that was basically square, rectangular and it didn’t fit the community. Think about how we live. We do pay taxes. We’re down at the end of Palo Alto. We’re not very in the middle, we’re at the very end but we’re still part of your community. We still pay taxes and we still vote for City Council Members so thank you very much for allowing us this time. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Nancy Martin, followed by Lu Lu and then Joan Beitzuri. Ms. Nancy Martin: Hi, I’m Nancy. I’ve lived at the Green House since ’76. Every bit of the word progress since then has led to more traffic. Progress, I do not define as more buildings. To me, this has been negative progress. We have lost so much. More businesses in the area do not add to a positive resident experience. Residents, that I have spoken with in the area, do not have confidence in the reports from City of Palo Alto Page 21 the organizations that have been used in the EIR. I specifically site reports from Hexagon. It is just not believable that a hotel with 294 rooms and a commensurate number of employees and services needed will only add 88 and 87 additional traffic trips a day; naive to believe that. Charts use for the projections do not tell the real story. Traffic is bad now and it will become intolerable. I quote from the EIR, the project would increase the average delay (the weight time experienced by drivers using the intersections) by 0.5 seconds or less; naive. Unbelievable. Not true. Anyone who drives San Antonio at any time but especially at commute times would know this is not realistic. The City excepts LOS (Level of Service) operating conditions of level D or better. The hotel traffic will lower levels to LOS F. Jammed conditions with excessive delays. This already happens at certain times of the day. The U-turns required at San Antonio and Middlefield, San Antonio and Leghorn will become traffic nightmares. I could go on and on about traffic but to move on to project objectives. Provide much-needed hotel rooms in the area of Palo Alto not currently served by hotels. Excuse me, these hotels are going to be used by Google who is in Mountain View, not – there’s not a lot of businesses in our area that need these hotels. Augment City of Palo Alto hotel tax reviews – revenues. Well, you’ve got the new hotels and you’ve got [paramonty] that you are going to be talking about. Redevelop an underutilized area. Excuse me, by who’s definition? This – Ok, I have more but I also am Lu Lu. Lu Lu has to work so I’ve been asked to read… Chair Lew: Can we do this? I think – So we do… Ms. Martin: I’m sorry. Chair Lew: Yeah, I can’t allow you to speak on behalf (inaudible) (crosstalk)… Ms. Martin: I was last time. Chair Lew: I know but… Ms. Martin: He wrote… Chair Lew: I know but we’ve actually gone – the Staff has gone through this with me and… Ms. Martin: Well, nobody told us. Chair Lew: Well, ok, I will say that we have it written on the agenda. Ms. Martin: No, he’s written a new email. Chair Lew: No, no, let me… Ms. Martin: Lu Lu has written a new email and he asked if I would read it, please. Chair Lew: I can’t let you do that. So, our rule is… Ms. Martine: What’s the harm in it, please? Chair Lew: I’m going to give you the rule, which is on the agenda, right? Spokesperson that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesmen’s – spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to 15-minutes. So, that’s our rule. We haven’t always enforced it in the past. Ms. Martin: Of course, all the advantages goes to the developer. Chair Lew: All comments can be set to… Ms. Martin: Well, Mr. Lu Lu happens to be a transportation employee. I’m sorry. (crosstalk) City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Lew: All comments can still be… Ms. Martin: Think about the City residents. Chair Lew: All comments can be submitted to the Staff. They get forwarded to the Board, they are included in the packet and they will go to the Council for review. So, it’s not too late to get your comments in. Ok. Ms. Martin: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: I’m sorry, you’re… Excuse me, you are out of order and if I have to I will… Ms. Martin: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: You are out of order and I’ve never had to use that before. Ok, Joan Beitzuri and Joan Larrabee and Pat [Sturett]. Ms. Joan Beitzuri: My talk will be short because no matter what facts we bring up, traffic, dewatering, visual degradation and no matter how much we prove that this hotel project goes against everything the City of Palo Alto stands for. No matter how much we prove that these hotels are not a fit in our neighborhood, money, and influences override doing what’s right. Let’s remember that in the early stages of this project, the ARB recommended that since this would be the first hotel in this area, that Marriott should concentrate on making them more pleasant, less dense, and a benefit for their neighbors and requested a major redesign of this project. Well, of course, this didn’t happen. They – what they did was they lowered the number of rooms from 300 to 294. Marriott doesn’t care about its neighbors. It only cares about making money. This hotel provides absolutely no benefits to the neighbors. These facts became a reality when at the April 5th ARB meeting, at the last minute before discussion of our agenda, Alex Lew, Peter Baltay, Wynne Furth and Robert Gooyer disclosed that they had privately and separately with architect Randy Popp. We attempted to voice a rebuttal but we were immediately told that we were not allowed to speak. This is a violation of City regulation. I’m sorry, I am upset. So, after these private meetings, the Boards position did change. It turned from the earlier position that I mentioned. Instead, your focus now is on shrubs, changing some colors, and adding a bench. Tax revenue and money is your decision maker, not doing what is right so check off and own approving the project that will have a major horrific and negative impact on our neighborhood and on the City of Palo Alto. Chair Lew: Thank you and I ask not to – to withhold any applause. It’s – or negative reactions. We do that because if there are people who want to support the project and they are a minority in the room. Then they would feel you know – what do you call it? Intimidated by a large crowd so we try to have no applause or boos at all during the hearing. Ok, so Joan Larrabee. Ms. Joan Larrabee: Good morning y’all. I’m back. We got the copy of the final EIR at 5 o’clock last night so that’s a little disappointing. The project ignores the requirement of the City that new development be compatible with existing surroundings. Palo Alto from 101 to the City limit line at Alma Street, which some of you don’t know that the City ends at Alma Street, is primarily residential and small businesses. Summer Wind Nursery, a couple small churches, small businesses like Tai Chi and this and that catering to the residents. Of course, the five-story hotel doesn’t do anything for the residents and some of the other people have suggested to you that a nice small hotel like the new one in Los Altos would have quite acceptable to us but this is not. Most of the people – most of the project and most of the Street, San Antonio Road, is housing. It starts at the JCC, which Mr. Popp designed. It’s mostly senior housing. There’s housing in Greenhouse One, Greenhouse two, hundreds of condominiums nicely landscaped, 670 San Antonio Road and 444 San Antonio are townhouse developments. There are apartment buildings and just small businesses catering to residents but the EIR – and we only have four lanes. Not like over in Mountain View on the other side of the train tracks that is six lanes wide where the tall buildings are. We have only four lanes and when construction starts, one of those can get closed down. The EIR says that our area is not suitable for housing but we’ve all lived there for 30 and 40-years and you’re telling us that City of Palo Alto Page 23 it’s not suitable. We’ve got two schools, daycare, everything and it says that it’s not suitable because there’s no train station but further in the EIR as mitigation for the hotel, it says there’s a train station with 20-minutes headways for the trains. Which is it? There’s a train station at San Antonio or there isn’t. The traffic, I can why the traffic counts were not redone because of 5-years ago, Level of Service – and I am going to talk more because you shut us off last – in April. It was already significant – it would be a significant problem and a significant impact and would stop this project if they had current traffic counts instead of 5-year old ones. The more aggreges, of course, is the dewatering problem. They started out with one basement of underground parking and that’s all that they did when they did their core drilling and voila! It’s now two stories of underground parking with a further requirement to have that checked and I’ll tell you something, you are worried about the money coming in. What’s going to happen is when [Mr. Bach] who’s had a business there for many, many, many years and the little grocery store on the other side when those two buildings start having cracks and start falling in because you are not requiring them to check the water. They are going to sue the City of Palo Alto and that’s going to be a negative on your revenue. I just can’t believe it… Chair Lew: Ok, (inaudible)… Ms. Larrabee: …but anyway, they are not doing – you’re not requiring them to go down another 10 or 15-feet for that second basement and you know what it says in the EIR, it says oh, there’s only 67 parking places there. That’s doesn’t make a difference and the other part of the EIR says oh, it’s back in a corner there. It doesn’t make a difference. Come on people. Chair Lew: Ok, yeah, you’re… Ms. Larrabee: And I am done. Chair Lew: Thank you. Next speaker is Pat [Sturett], followed by Chris Brosnan and Thomas Irpan. [Ms. Pat Sturett:] it's Sturett. Full disclosure is that I am from Chicago. I did not sit through a jail window to get here and I did not come across in a covered wagon. I’ve been in Palo Alto for 55-years. I’ve lived on both sides of Oregon. I know what’s been going on and it pretty much – well, I really wanted to start with thank you for your service on this Board. I’m sure it’s not easy to determine the outcome of the many projects that come before you. However, I’ve been lying awake for nights –the bags – wondering what I could that you would help you to take a new look at what you are evaluating. Now, I work the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District starting in ’78 and land accusation so I know EIRs. I was not aware that an EIR did not require a CEQA report. I’m sure you’ve all driven down San Antonio and surely, you’ve considered oh, it’s an emergency vehicle. How will an emergency vehicle get through? I haven’t heard one word from any of you thinking about that. It would be interesting to know your ideas on that. It all started with that sign on Alma, where is says all trucks must go down San Antonio Road and in parenthesis, any project that we don’t know what to do with. San Antonio is a potluck and the people who live there are left over citizens as far as I am concerned. Again, I’ve watched for 55-years what’s been going on so I know the good, the bad and the indifferent and I know the difference. So, I am going to ask you – all the research that all the residents have done, they are ignored. In fact, one speaker had finished, you thought we were through and somebody said oh, now let’s talk about the color on the hotel. Whoa, there’s enlightenment for you. I’m going to ask you to put on your neighborhood hats. You’re all neighbors and you all have a neighbor. I’m one of your neighbors, I’m one of you citizens and so are all the people who that are here. We shop, live, work, play, everything that a resident does and it seems to me that your first consideration should be the residents of Palo Alto. Not the person that is a hit and run. A person that stops at a hotel. Now, I have noticed that Mr. Popp is proposing a hotel next to McDonald's. Perfect. Absolutely no neighbors, no problem. He talked about grab and go food, ok. He can grab one of his architectural plans for a hotel and put it in; 100%. Perfect place, no neighbors, no objections. Reason has to come in here somewhere. Fairness has to be a part of your decision. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you. Chris Brosnan, Thomas Irpan and Annette Hilton. Great. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Mr. Chris Brosnan: Good morning. Good morning. I’ll try to focus on some things that weren’t said yet. I looked through the architectural or the Environmental Impact Review and I was disappointed to see no discussion of possible crime. We pride ourselves on having almost no crime in Palo Alto but we do actually have a problem on the street of San Antonio with a crime. Only on the street too, not within our complex so I was kind of disappointed not to see any discussion of that. Another thing that I was disappointed not to see is that these issues are very pertinent but also, we’ve seen that there’s a lot of construction up the street and we’ve been discussing that. Many of the other adjacent or nearby properties are being purchased as well and it’s kind of strange that there’s no discussion of what this possible project could have on more projects being done in the area and what that would look like. It just kind of seems like oh, well, let’s just do this and worry about that later. I’m kind of concerned that there’s no talk about that whatsoever. I didn’t think that my 3-minutes were actually up. That was kind of like a –yeah, anyway. For me, I’ve grown up in Palo Alto and it was a nice place and I still think it is a nice place but it’s becoming a little unlivable in terms of there’s much pollution on the streets right now. I’ve done a lot of research about this stuff. I’ve had the privilege to make car exhaust in a lab and test what it does to myself and it’s much more prevalent than people really think. There’s a lot of research that have shown that even low levels of pollution can harm people and I really – I’m concerned to see kids walking up and down the street going to school and there’s just a gridlock of cars that are just spewing harmful things towards them. It really bothers me and I would really like to see more things about that. That’s all I really wanted to say. So, far I would like to echo the concerns that my neighbors have brought up. I feel that they are very valid and I would like to see this go forward into a place that people can be happier about it. I think there’s a problem when you bring in these experts that are not living here, that are saying oh, there won’t be an impact on traffic. Where anybody who lives here knows there is going to be a big impact and you don’t need to pay somebody to come and tell us that. I would like to see more input from the residents but thank you for considering our objections. Chair Lew: Great. Thank you. Thomas Irpan. Mr. Thomas Irpan: Yeah, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to give you a comment and suggestion. I just want to call the attention that this morning, Save Palo Alto’s Ground Water gave a response and photo of clarification on the issue of dewatering. According to Dr. [Kit (inaudible)] who cannot be here today, that the project has not seriously considered this issue. They are (inaudible) and problematic to deal with these issue, instead of taking a risk of a lawsuit of whatsoever. This was already sent out in writing and hopefully, the City planner and the Board had the opportunity to review it in more detail. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. We have Annette Hilton, followed by Suzie Mitchell. Ms. Annette Hilton: Hi, good morning. My neighbors have already addressed a lot of the concerns that we have. I’d like to just again, emphasize that there are 288 homeowners on this one block; 288. We have traffic lights at both ends of the block, as well as one at Charleston and San Antonio. Charleston, Leghorn, and Middlefield, the traffic is already impacted. The report – the EIR report cited one school. There are actually six. There are two private schools and there are four in PAUSD. JLS Middle School, Fair Meadow, Hoover, and Greendell so it’s a biking and walking place for kids, as well as those of us who live there. We have Google buses that are new since the last report that uses our street and the intersection streets as well, all the time. As well as people who go to Costco and come off 101. Coming off 101 are all the trucks coming into Palo Alto use San Antonio because they can’t use Embarcadero. So, we have trucks, we have Google buses, and we have the 288 homeowners already who are living, working, going to school and doing their business on a daily basis. That’s a lot of traffic on one block and I think the hotel is inappropriate just based on the traffic. There are other concerns about parking, compatibility, the denseness of the building, and something that hasn’t been brought up is the lighting. On their diagram, Marriott Court Yard AC etc. is going to be at the third floor. That’s going to shine into the bedrooms of people across the street who – that’s their home. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. We have Suzie Mitchell and Julia [Conahan]. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Ms. Julie Mitchell: Hi, thanks for meeting with us. My name is Suzie Mitchell and I was born and raised in Palo Alto and I currently own a condominium at 777 San Antonio. I’ve always been concerned about and strongly opposed to the proposed construction of the two Marriott hotels. Initially, my opposition had a lot of emotion mixed in, as well as trying to work with the facts of the project. Given the time during the proposal process, I’ve been able to sort the emotion away from the facts and be a little more objective and observe what my main concern is and that’s the traffic. San Antonio and the intersection of Charleston, Leghorn, and Middlefield are overwhelmed with traffic and the congestion is really impossible given at different times of the day. It’s unrealistic to take videos at certain times of the year, which is Christmas Vacations or certain summertime weeks. There are just a lot of holidays that make it look like it’s a very smooth flowing street and it’s not. Despite what the EIR report states, I and many have questions and question the hotels and how they really will significantly and negatively impact the traffic congestion levels. I believe that we may not be able to change -- no matter how hard we cling to the past or whatever, we may not be able to change or alter the current traffic situation but I do believe that we have a responsibility as good citizens and people who make decisions to not make them worse. I ask that you please give that – that that into consideration as you make you decision. It’s an important one and it really does impact those of us that live in that neighborhood. Thanks very much. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. So, we have Julia [Conahan] and followed by Patricia Markee and [John Patrala]. [Ms. Julia Conahan:] We’ve lived at the Greenhouse since 1981. My husband has lived there since 1977 when it opened and I would just like to say that I am against this project. I don’t think is very attractive for our neighborhood. I think it’s too big, it’s too tall and I think that the number of rooms is going to create a real traffic problem. We have a traffic problem now because Google opened and last night, we drove from the Greenhouse up to San Antonio or I mean up to El Camino for dinner and it took us 18- minutes and that’s only a mile. It was gridlock and when I’m up there – when I come over from – I come down from downtown Palo Alto to shop at one of the stores at El Camino, I don’t come home on San Antonio Road, although I live on that. I have to go all the way back to Charleston and come the back way because you just can’t move. You can’t get in. It’s just a terrible situation and I think adding 294 or whatever number rooms is doing be terrible. I also think that somebodies said that you have a Café. I don’t know where the parking is going to be for a Café if people want to go use it because the road in front of our house on San Antonio Road is always – there’s always people parking there because they don’t – there’s not parking in that neighborhood. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Patricia Markee. Ms. Patricia Markee: Good morning. Thank you for being willing to listen to us. Oh, that was fast. I am a long-term resident of Greenhouse One and I am deeply concern about this proposal. These five-story hotels do not fit in our community neighborhood. Most of the people on San Antonio are residents. From Charleston to Alma there are 326 homes; that’s three blocks and 44 small businesses. (Inaudible) These buildings are much too tall. The rest of our neighborhood consists of one and two-story buildings. Across the street from the proposed site, the Greenhouses have garages. Our first ground stories, which were dug out of the earth and cannot be seen from the street or from the grounds between our buildings. Thus, making our so called three-story condos, visually into two stories so they cannot be used to justify a tall building. Everything is one or two-stories in the neighborhood. Marriott’s report on traffic states no impact. I guess their 300 guests and 50 employees are going to walk. The traffic on San Antonio is fast becoming a nightmare. Especially during rush hours when it’s gridlocked. These two hotels both have the same exit; one exit. So, ten cars trying to merge into this gridlock traffic would take a long time and 50 cars driving to dinner would certainly have an impact on traffic. I have seen a photo of San Antonio that Marriott provided. I didn’t recognize any buildings or trees in that photo and I have been walking San Antonio for more than 40-years so please be very skeptical. Truth can get lost in companies with a lot of money on the line. A better choice for this site would be residences that meet Palo Alto’s housing needs. This would create a more appropriate growth of our community neighborhood. About 550 people reside City of Palo Alto Page 26 in the Greenhouses. Most are connected by the internet so please do remember that we vote. Thank you for your attention. Chair Lew: Great, and next speaker is [John Patrala] and we have two more speakers after that or one more speaker after that which is Ester Nigenda. Aw, more speakers. [Mr. John Patrala:] Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I have just a couple items to discuss. There are more concerns than this and there should be no surprise that I speak against the proposed project. One of my concerns is that the traffic – there’s no mention in the EIR whether or not there’s going to be a lane reduction on San Antonio during the construction time. Does that mean that you’re promising that there won’t be or you’re just ignoring the fact that you’re going to spring it on us later that we’re going to go from two lanes of traffic to one lane of traffic? I would like to see something clear and unambiguous about whether or not there’s going to be any lane – traffic lane reduction during the construction phase and/or after the construction phase. It’s no addressed at all. Last night at around 10, I walked out on the block between the Leghorn intersection and the driveway to Greenhouse two. There were about 13 vehicles parked along that strip there and there was room for maybe two or three more along that strip. If there’s going to be lane reduction or if that parking lane is going to disappear during construction, those cars are going to flow back into the neighborhoods. You’ve probably heard of that problem in downtown Palo Alto where neighborhoods get upset when cars start parking in their neighborhoods so that’s a concern to me and it should be a concern to you. Because San Antonio has a median strip, there’s only places to make a left or U-turn at the Leghorn intersection or on Middlefield Road and – so you would have to assume – I think it’s a reasonable assumption that half of the cars going into the hotel will be making a – depending upon which direction they are going, they are going to be making a left or a U-turn. There is plenty of capacity for making a left or U-turn on the Middlefield Road but there’s a very small capacity on the Leghorn intersection. That’s just going to – so it’s going to back up and impact traffic. Traffic, you may have heard by now, during commute times can get to gridlock so that brings up the question of emergency vehicles. I made that point – I tried to make that point in my comments but the response to my comments where basically that oh, well people will just pull aside and make room for the emergency vehicles because that’s the law. Well, in a gridlock, there’s no place to pull aside so I think whoever wrote that particular response should reconsider that response. I guess I have one final question, I noticed in the revised EIR that the requirement for a lead certification on the building was removed and I’d like to hear some explanation for the lead certification is no longer a requirement. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you and Ester Nigenda. Ms. Ester Nigenda: Good morning. Ester Nigenda speaking for Save Palo Alto’s Ground Water. While we recognize the importance of hotels to the economic vitality of our City, we do not agree with the conclusion of the final Environmental Impact Report of minimal impacts from dewatering for this project. First, if the underground built area will go to 18-feet, it is extremely unlikely that dewatering would happen only up to 18-feet. Recognizing this, the City guidelines call for dewatering no more than 3-feet below construction. Thus, dewatering for the proposed project will likely need to lower the ground water to 21-feet. The Geo Technical Report for this project explicitly says that there are some significantly thick, relatively clean sand layers bellows a depth of about 20-feet that will generate a significant volume of water and not penetrating into those layers with a dewatering well is desirable. Second, the stated area for dewatering to 18-feet is said to be 14,100-square feet. This area is four times less (inaudible) residential basement of 3,500-square feet as a similar ground water level that pump over 30 million gallons of water. I guess you could say that I am a water advocate but four times 30 million gallons is a lot of water and water is more precious than gold. The report claims that pumping will be reduced as soon as possible reducing the potential for offsite settlement. I think the Geo-Technical Report that 16-months of dewatering would be required because dewatering has to continue until two top stories are built to count act buoyance. They also recommended backup power so that dewatering would not be interrupted. Not only would that be 16-months of localized drought for surrounding properties but Palo Alto currently allows dewatering only from April to October, which is 7-months. Our research shows and sent you a graph this morning, that dewatering impacts ground water levels at distances in excess of City of Palo Alto Page 27 200-feet. We also sent you a copy of an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that construction of underground parking near Rite Aide in San Mateo near the Bay has been reported as the likely cause of significant settling and there’s a big lawsuit. Gordon Hinkley, the 15th President of the Latter-Day Saints once said that you can’t build a great building on a weak foundation. You must have a solid foundation if you are going to have a strong superstructure. We ask that this project be reviewed, especially for the dewatering part. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Last speaker that I have I Barbra Crime. Ms. Barbra Crime: Thank you for hearing me. I’d like to say that I’ve been in Palo Alto at my residences for 55-years and I just go crazy just with the traffic going down San Antonio Road. That used to be easy but now, just to get up to where I can make a left turn on Middlefield coming down San Antonio going East, it takes me three lights to get up to the light at certain times of the day or evenings. Just to get in that left turn lane because you can’t get over to get in the lane. I’ve seen results – I get really angry every time I walk down Loma Verde and [Espeior] when I see all these cars that are parked on the side of the streets in front of other people’s residences because the conidium’s where approved with inadequate parking for the housing. A lot of young families moved in and there was no parking on three sides. There’s a little tiny park in back (inaudible) and then on the other side is – I don’t know, a business and then, of course, you can’t drive down West Bay Shore and so all of those people, as a result, they have – they don’t park in their garages because a lot of them store their furniture and stuff in it. Those people park in front of other people’s houses and I just think these impact studies don’t recognize the fact that there are just going to be these kinds of problems as a result. I’ve talked with a lot of people over in my neighborhood and they get really angry because people are all parked in front their houses. I know one older lady, she said their friends couldn’t come to visit because they have to park so far away but the people who do the studies, I don’t know where they live or – I don’t mean – I mean where they mentally are to come up with the results that they come up with. I can see with this project, I’ll have to wait through maybe eight lights to be able to work my way up to turn left on Middlefield. Thank you very much. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, everybody for coming out and also, we did receive – the Board did receive lots of emails over the past couple of weeks. I’m going to close the public hearing portion of the – of this item and we’ll bring it back to the Board for comments. Peter? Board Member Baltay: I was going to ask Alex, before that. There was the email that one of the members of the public referred to. Would it be possible to have Staff just read that into the record for us? Chair Lew: Yes. Board Member Baltay: If it exists. Would you mind? Ms. Ah Sing: Ok. Thanks for the update. I have read the responses to my comments E-1 and E-2 and that’s referring the final EIR document, which only emphasizes on what standard manual it uses and how the methodology it uses I consistent with Palo Alto standard methodology while ignoring common sense. I have serious concerns about the validity of the conclusions in the study. I have two questions for the City. E-1, 1,522 daily trips removing 11 PM to 5 AM, that’s 85 trips per hour. The study is fundamentally based on the peak hour trip estimation of 108 trips per hour. In a City like Palo Alto where most of the hotel guests are business travelers and follow regular commuting patterns, it says that there will be only 25% more trips during peak hours than during non-peak hours. Does it make sense? E-2, the conclusion of the no significant traffic impact is based on the methodology LOS standard. That also said the current traffic condition in these intersections is acceptable. Note that this is one of the most congested intersections in Palo Alto. Does this make sense? If the answers are yes, I don’t have any more comment. We don’t need to do anything to improve Palo Alto traffic condition as it’s already acceptable. If the answers are no, my suggestions are one, no matter how official a manual is. If it’s too generalized and outdated to get a reasonable number for this specific project. It does not make any sense to use it to get City of Palo Alto Page 28 conclusions. Field studies should be conducted to get localized data to be used in estimations. If the consulting firm does not want to make – does not want to take the effort to get more accurate numbers, find a better one. Two, if a methodology that is consistent with Palo Alto standard but results in an anti- common-sense conclusion, that means that Palo Alto standard is wrong. By the way, the LOS standard is indeed well known for its usefulness. We should fix a standard instead of blindly excepting a wrong conclusion based on a standard. Thanks, Lu Lu. Board Member Baltay: Thank you, Alex and thank you, Sheldon. I guess I’d like to address the community here. There’s been a lot of discussion and a lot of strong feelings about this project. I think all of us have given it a lot of thought and I’ll be honest with you, I think the problem is the traffic. The problem is that the traffic is already unacceptable. The problem is that many of you have lived in this neighborhood for a long time and the traffic has grown worse, much worse over your time here so it’s very noticeable to you. I don’t think the problem is the hotel. The problem is the traffic. In my opinion, in my reading all the reports, listening to the traffic studies and whatnot, I don’t think the hotel is going to dramatically change the traffic situation. It’s already bad. I don’t believe that it’s going to get much worse because of the hotel. I’m looking at this issue that I have that out there and that’s what I think about the guts of the problem. That’s why I think many of you are here and I wish there was something we could do as architects – as an Architectural Review Board to make the traffic problem better but I don’t know what that is. I don’t think that’s the purview of an Architectural Review Board. With that, let me come to the building itself. I think it’s a big building. I think the architects have made a lot of effort to mitigate the apparent mass of the building. I think they’ve done that successfully. The building when it was originally presented was a five-story façade on San Antonio, which was much less in character in context than what’s currently presented. They’ve worked hard, the Staff has worked hard and we’ve pushed hard to get that modified. I’d like to bring it to the community’s attention. This particular type of use on this lot is legal. The City Council has authorized a FAR rating of 2.0. That means a 200% times the lot area can be built as a building. Typically for a commercial building in that area, it’s .4. This is a factor of five times more. It’s a lot of additional mass of the building. We’re not charged as an Architectural Review Board to set zoning standards. This is zoning standard your City Council has put in place. We’re charged with making that the best way that we can to fit and be compatible. I find that we have done that. This building is compatible and it is the best building that we can hope for given the 2.0 FAR and I put it to the community that if you are unhappy with large buildings like this, change the zoning code. Don’t ask the Architecture Board to reject a project that meets the standards. I have a further question about the landscaping but why don’t I let everybody else go first. Thank you. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Basically, I couldn’t agree with that more. That’s exactly what it is. The applicant is not asking for any particular variances or modifications to the requirements. They’re building within the perimeters that have been legally approved by the City of Palo Alto and I’ve heard a half of dozen people say we vote. Well, you know, if that’s the case, then this is not the purview to tell us about voting because you’re not voting for us. It – we work at the discretion of the City Council. If you are unhappy with something that they’ve done, then you voice your opinion there or at the ballot box. We’re set – we’re here voluntarily to try and do the best thing we can is based on the perimeters that we are given and I’m sure the applicant will attest to the fact that we’ve been a royal pain in the you know what because we’ve requested or we’ve demanded a lot of changes but we still have to work within the perimeters of what we’re told or what is legal for us. If this particular property – the code said that you could only build a three-story building, then that would be it but it doesn’t say that. It gives a height limit and how many square feet can be built as was mentioned. I understand completely where you are coming from in that respect but this is not the purview to respond to that. I can – like I said, we can see everyone is upset but the – we’re trying to do the best available or the best job for the community to get what’s done. I mean, I see a lot of shaking heads but there is no other solution to that. I ‘ve been told that maybe they ought to put it on, El Camino. If you put this on El Camino, the people to get to 101 are still going to come down San Antonio so the traffic really isn’t going to change any. The exact fact – maybe the fact that the location is fairly close to 101 makes it easier for people who are living further in the City. Now that doesn’t help you can but again, we’re looking at it from the overall community as a City of Palo Alto Page 29 whole. We represent the entire community of Palo Alto so with that, I have to agree with my fellow Board Member that I think it’s acceptable as it is. Chair Lew: And Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you and thank you for coming to speak to us. It always feels a bit hollow to say that when it’s clear that so many people feel unheard but you are not unheard. As my colleague’ said, some of the decisions which are most -- to which you are most opposed are decisions that we don’t make. One of the things that I keep hearing as I listen to you is that we live in a region and you particularly, as border dwellers – near border dwellers live where regional impacts are so very obvious and I live in the downtown North. I live in the mixed-use section of northern Palo Alto and we certain have felt abused and exploited by the practice of using residential streets for parking, commercial buildings and uses and its use to assume me when people say oh, you want parking in front of your house. Well, no, I would like it within two blocks but it is true. One you talked about what Palo Alto stands for and what Palo Alto stands for, in its context, is increasing density and with it certainly, -- you know maybe we are heading for peak car and it’s going to reduce itself soon but certainly that means less mobility. When I hear you talking about the ways in which this hits you particularly; running errands and going to dinner, I think that highlights a problem with the way that we study traffic. We focus on peak hour and what a lot of us experience is that it’s the difficulty in going anywhere at any time that really has changed our sense of our neighborhoods and how we live in them and how hospitable they are to us. You raised a lot of distressing issues and some of them I would like to ask Staff for clarification on. What are we saying about construction traffic impact? I know we have hundreds of pages of documents but in brief, what – how are we addressing that on this very busy road? Do we anticipate lane closures? Ms. Ah Sing: As part of the condition of approval, there would be a logistic plan that would be submitted to the City for approval that would review things such as construction hours and traffic control, pedestrian control, dust control, noise control. Board Member Furth: Is there any opportunity for public participation in that process or could there be in this very difficult situation? Mr. Lait: No. This is a question that we get frequently on projects. I will say that the logistic plan is a public document but we don’t have a system in place for receiving public input on that. This is a document that is reviewed by our Transpiration Department, which is interested in traffic flow and making sure that there are no impacts during peak times or where there might be a conflict. They also look at safe routes to schools and making sure that there are no impacts to the free movement of students going to and from places. It’s also reviewed by our Public Works Department and Utilities to make sure that there are no other conflicts with other areas of interested that they may have. As well as fire safety and our public services. It’s a pretty thoroughly reviewed document and people are certain to welcome to request a logistics plan but we don’t have a public review process for that. Board Member Furth: Or to write you about what they would like to see in that logistic plan. What they consider acceptable levels of disruption. Mr. Lait: We certainly would accept any documents that would come in. Sure. Board Member Furth: Ok. Is it too soon to tell whether this would result in shutdowns of traffic lanes during daytime hours? Mr. Lait: I don’t know if Staff has some of that information. I see the applicant is up and may have some perspective on that but I will say that anything that’s submitted is reviewed by the various City departments. Mr. Popp: If I may, thank you. Of course, we have not submitted a logistics plan yet but we’ve actually thought quite a bit about this. This site has a unique condition. There is roughly a 300-foot frontage on City of Palo Alto Page 30 San Antonio for this site and within that frontage, there’s a 24-foot special setback that we are not allowed to build on. This will become staging, truck movement, and storage. As we’re digging a big hole behind that, we’ve got this very generous zone. Wider – as wider as a two-lane road that is an area that we will have as a working space that is not on San Antonio Road. While there may be a short period where we need to manage traffic and do something as trucks are moving and out of the site, it’s our instinct in this case that we will be able to limit that to a very large degree. I’ll point out that the EIR did address the traffic during construction and because of the future use and because of the current use, the ins and outs of construction actually are less traffic impact, typically than what you would see on a normal day if the site was in use. Board Member Furth: Thank you, that’s helpful and I do realize that a lot of this information is in the documents but I also think it’s impossible for all of us to master all of it. Particularly in a setting like this. Thank you. I have a bunch of stickies here. Briefly, there’s a lot of concern about the accuracy of the Hexagon traffic reports. I think that my colleague’s hit the principle problem which is that they assume the existing traffic is acceptable and that is not life as it's experienced by those who live and pass through this area. I’m much concerned about a regional impact which is the increased impact of Google operations. How did that study deal with Google coming online so intensively here? I mean I know they talk about anticipated future development, not just what is happening when they did the original study. Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, so when we – when you start the environmental process, you’ll notice a preparation and that kind of establishes the baseline and we did acknowledge a number of projects that were approved… Board Member Furth: Regionally. Mr. Ah Sing: …or part of the (inaudible) and that’s in your draft EIR and that’s part of the whole analysis for the cumulative analysis. Board Member Furth: And you feel that we adequately dealt with reality as it changed during this project – during this extensive planning period? Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, I mean – so we – there can’t be a moving target. We have to establish (inaudible) (crosstalk)… Board Member Furth: I understand. We have a baseline and then – but we also – when we – we look at cumulative impact so we’re looking at other anticipated development during the period. Mr. Lait: Yeah so, we study cumulative impacts that were known at the time the notice of preparation was filed for the Environmental Impact Report. Board Member Furth: And do we have a sense that we had some big surprises since then or is this pretty much what we expected? Mr. Lait: Well, I don’t know if we have a comparable list of cumulative impacts at -- what was it? A year and a half ago and today so I’d have to get back to you on a question like that. Board Member Furth: I think it – I’m certainly not asking you to do it today but I think it does have to do with whether these are things that people can come to really rely on. So, much discussion of the Geo- Technical Study and the ground water adequacy and perhaps inconsistencies between the proposed pumping programs and our local regulations. Could you explain that to me? I understand the increased local anxiety when it’s become evident that perhaps our standards for groundwater pumping have not been as lovely as we would have liked or as effective as we would have liked in other jurisdictions and we are all very much aware that we have experienced what near record rainfalls so how will we be – will we be asking for an update on the Geo-Technical information before we permit people to start digging and draining? City of Palo Alto Page 31 Mr. Ah Sing: The project needs to be consistent with the ordinance – the local ordinances regarding dewatering. We do have a condition of approval regarding dewatering and we do have an updated condition than the one that’s in your packet… Board Member Furth: Condition number which? Mr. Ah Sing: …that’s consistent – it’s condition number 29. Board Member Furth: Which is on the page? Mr. Ah Sing: That condition actually, -- we were working on this packet, we’re actually working on what’s going to City Council as well so I know the dewatering condition of approval will be updated to be consistent with the new ordinance and the project will need to be consistent with that. If they are consistent with that, then they have addressed the dewatering concern. Board Member Furth: Ok, so what I’m suggesting is that if we don’t have an updated Geo Technical Report, it might be in the City’s interest to ask for one. Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, so we have Geo Technical Report that’s for the project and that will need to be augmented… Ms. Amy Ashton: Hello, my name is Amy Ashton. I’m with David J. Powers and associates and we prepared the Environmental Impact Report. So, the City of Palo Alto as of May and that was after we prepared our draft EIR, so included information regarding the new dewatering requirements which we adopted in May and the City has some robust requirements in the ordinance, as well as guidelines. It requires monitoring of adjacent properties. It requires reuse of the water – offers reuse of the water that is dewatered. There is Geo Technical Report that has to be prepared to specifically address dewatering and how that’s going to work and impacts on adjacent properties. There are impacts to landscaping that will have to be dealt with so this City has a robust set of requirements and the applicant will have to follow every single one of them during construction. Board Member Furth: So, we’re not going to see trees dying at the Greenhouse because of this project’s dewatering? Ms. Ashton: That’s the idea and their Geo Technical analysis will have to include all of this as part of permitting. Board Member Furth: I mean, one of the things that it seems to me is important on a project of this size that’s causing such grave concern is that people continue to beware of what Staff’s doing as they get away from these public hearings and comment to them. The reason we have a set of robust groundwater standards in this City is because we had a bunch of robust groundwater activists in this City. Let’s see, emergency vehicles, I think probably the traffic study did it. The question about has it – is it true that the requirement for lead certification has been removed and if so why? Mr. Ah Sing: No, they still have to follow the requirements, it’s just that the actual certificate is not necessary so they still have to go through and meet the standards. Board Member Furth: And which standards are those? Which lead certification where they before (inaudible)? Untangle it for me. Mr. Ah Sing: We’re using Cal. Green as the standard. Mr. Lait: I believe the State standards are now more robust than the lead certification and so… City of Palo Alto Page 32 Board Member Furth: So, that’s a good answer. That’s a more demanding standard, Thank you. These are questions from me? What the side setbacks for this parcel? What I am going to is the statement that because we’re – there’s a podium involved here and subterranean parking, it imposes constraints on what you can plant. I want to know what the side yard setbacks are both above ground and below ground, because when I hear at this point in a project that we can’t – we’re building a five-story building, I want four-story landscaping. When I hear that we can’t do it because we can’t get to the dirt, I think this I something that we should have addressed early in the project. It’s not something that I want to hear again. I know that there are some setbacks and I’m asking – I’m basically saying are really kept from doing adequate landscaping by inadequate setbacks and how do they apply below ground, which is what matters most for landscaping? Mr. Laymon: If I might address that? What I was referring to specifically was with regards to the limitation of the podium relative to more native type plantings. It doesn’t constrain the fact that we can do taller plantings, it’s just not native. It’s just that the native species tend to have more robust root systems to be drawing water in the more drought tolerant situations so we are using species which have a proven performance of performing well on a podium condition that accommodates a shallower root system. Board Member Furth: So, we’re going to look like Italian graveyards, is what you are telling me? So, what is the subterranean setback and what’s the surface setback? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt: The basement is… Chair Lew: No, that’s not correct. Ms. Gerhardt: …setback 10-feet from the property line. Chair Lew: If you look at section – on Sheet A-5.2, it’s the sections and they all show that the extent of the garage – basement garage extends. Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, right it’s (inaudible). So, the 10-foot setback reflects the surface condition and below ground, it’s probably half that. Board Member Furth: This comes up repeatedly on sizes of sites when we look at plants so maybe you can put this – add this to our list of things to think about but I think that assuming one can go all the way out and still adequately landscape isn’t always a safe assumption. Mr. Popp: I’ll just promote that roots don’t stop at the property line, right? So… Board Member Furth: I understand. Mr. Popp: …if you plant within that 5-foot zone, the roots will grow under the property line and across and use adjacent areas as well. Board Member Furth: Which means perhaps we need more. Mr. Popp: We’ve selected planting materials that will get to that four-story height, is that right? Yeah. We’re anticipating that while we’ve shown plantings materials, as you requested, with a level of maturity of about 15-years. Board Member Furth: Right. Mr. Popp: That over time these species will get to 40-feet tall without difficulty in this zone with this type of dimensional constraint. We don’t anticipate this particular species – these particular species to have difficulty achieving those heights. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board Member Furth: Thank you. Let me see if I can get rid of all these stickies. So, what – this is – I’m n reasonably reassured about the landscaping. I think this whole issue of adequate setbacks that still allow for landscaping is important. I would note that they are asking for a parking adjustment and I don’t think it’s wrong. I am – what – have there been any changes in the entry court and drive since we first saw this project? Is there anymore holding space there for cars coming off and maybe the EIR consultant can help this too but I’m still concerned – well first, have there been any changes and secondly, I’m still concerned that last time we talked about the fact that a condition of approval is that this hotel operation not back cars up into the travel lanes. I can pull up and pull in at any time. I’m going to slow down to find the driveway but I’m not going to be backed up because there are two cars in front of me. Last time, we talked about the fact that – I believe there’s a conditional use permit condition that says thou shalt not back up property – or am I think of another project? That to not back up traffic into the street, is that true or is there no CUP? Is there no such condition? Mr. Ah Sing: There’s no condition on this. There’s no conditional use permit as well. Board Member Furth: Well, but we are requiring a TDM right? Mr. Ah Sing: There is a TDM. Board Member Furth: Traffic Demand Management and it seems to me that needs to have a requirement that there be no back up into the travel lanes. I think that this – I can’t do anything – we can’t do anything about massive increases in regional traffic but perhaps and show address this. I personally – I’m sorry, am I missing something here? Mr. Lait: So, Commissioner Furth or Board Member Furth, your concern is that there would be or the potential for the concern about vehicles queuing in such a way that there’s backup on San Antonio? Board Member Furth: I am. Mr. Lait: I think we’ve addressed this on another project recently where we established a performance standard where we required that… Board Member Furth: Don’t do it. Mr. Lait: Right and that there could be modifications as required to site operations, value operations, TDM plans and so we can incorporate a similar condition to address that issue. Then it’s a performance standard that we just remedy. Board Member Furth: Because I think we’ve been talking about this since the first hearing and I think the architects and designers are comfortable with what they have. It’s interesting, I don’t have the expertise to critic a – by law actually, I don’t have the expertise to critic a traffic study but I do parking. The courts have held that parking is something that people of ordinary understanding can comment on and be legally meaningful oddly enough. At our last session, I believe the applicant told us that they would load and unload not in the circular courtyard but further back but when I look at the plans, it says drop off and the entries appear to be right there. When I look at the documents, admittedly and earlier document, it says they will be greeted at the drive entrances to the hotels and guest may call for their car from their room prior from departure so the valet team can have it delivered to the lobby entrance. Well, as soon as I’m going to the Courtyard and somebody has got their car delivered to the – what’s the other hotel? AC? AC Hotel and somebody else is wondering around with their whatever, I’m blocking access and nobody can get through so I’m still concerned. I understand that I am a minority here but I’m concerned. Mr. Popp: Do you want me – so, I apologize, I don’t have a really enlarged version of that driveway on my slide here but just to very briefly identify what our expectations are and I’m sorry if there is a misunderstanding. The drop off is at the circular drive. There is a lobby on either side of it. A circular City of Palo Alto Page 34 drive is comprised of multiple lanes of the driveway. There’s a width there so that there are two lanes so if a car is stopped, you can still get around it. One of the advantages that we have and as hotel operators, T2 has an (inaudible) experience with this but the implementation of a valet system where we will have people who are able to move cars quickly and shuttle cars to the back for staging before they are moved down into the garage. That will allow us to, with confidence, keep an open path of vehicular movement in that circular drive. We do not anticipate having stacking extend out onto San Antonio at any point. Chair Lew: Sure. Mr. Lait: Board Member, if we get to a point where you are interested in a condition like that or if the Board is interested in a condition, we can have some language for you. Board Member Furth: If you are – if we are interested in the condition and if you are working with us to propose one, the big question is going to be how is it enforced? How is it enforceable because the City is full of conditions and has a limited ability to make things happen so you sort of need a mechanism that lets the vigilant eyes of the neighborhood report and get good responses quickly. Thank you. Oh, and I am grateful for the design changes that have taken place during this process. These are very big buildings and our efforts to have them more concentrated on this site have been unsuccessful. I think the efforts to have them step back to have more landscaping and I would note to Staff that it’s not just the ground level landscaping that needs to be an important and maintained condition of approval. I think they will help. I think this is going to radically transform the view from local residences. I regret the loss of sunrises and the hiding of the moon but that’s the direction the City Council has given us. That this is zoned for that density and I think this building is better than a lower, unterraced, unmodulated building would be. I think that – there was a comment that this looks like a jail or a prison and I don’t think it does. You heard us talking about the future buildings off Cal. Ave. Where in fact, the City is in a much better position to listen to us because the City is the client. Whether they do or not is another matter. I don’t think these are going to be ugly per say. I – when I moved here it was the sun and a sea of asphalt was the dominating thing when you got off the freeway and I think that the landscaping and the JCC are an improvement on that. I think this road itself is better looking than is used to being. It is unquestionably more congested but I don’t think these are going to be ugly buildings. I think they are going to be very big buildings and this use to be one of the most post-war neighborhoods in Palo Alto. For me, post-war means after World War II. I live in a pre-war neighborhood which is practically pre-Civil War but not actually but close; 1880s and it won’t be anymore and it isn’t. I’ve spent a lot of time in this neighborhood. I go to church in this neighborhood. I go to the gym in this neighborhood. I go to the nursery in this neighborhood because particularly every other nursery for miles has disappeared and these transitions are losses but I agree with the environmental consultants that these are not CEQA level losses. They aren’t that kind of damage to the environment that gives rise to CEQA findings. I am willing to except the loss of a historic building. I trust that we will document it well and see if there are any bits and pieces that should be salvaged. I admit that I have never seen it until I started reading these studies but I except the HRB’s conclusion on this. So, the only thing that’s holding me up is my anxiety about backup traffic so I am interested to hear what my colleagues have to say. Chair Lew: Thank you, Wynne. I have some questions for Staff, I guess. I don’t think we’ve talked about this one before so there’s an existing holly oak tree near the back property line; its tree number 81, that’s being proposed to be retained. So, my question is what tree protection measures are being proposed for that because the basement is going to – as I read the plans, it would extend into the root zone of that holly oak? Mr. Ah Sing: Right, so that type of tree species is not a protected tree. However, the project will go through and have a tree protection plan as part of the process so I’m sure they will try their very best to maintain that. Chair Lew: Ok, I think Randy has a follow up too. City of Palo Alto Page 35 Mr. Popp: Yeah, I mean I’ll just mention very briefly that our City has a very thoughtful and capable tree technical manual that identifies all of the management techniques that are necessary during that period, including weekly evaluation and arborist reports that are filed frequently to ensure that it’s healthy and it’s being protected properly and we’ll follow all those guidelines. Chair Lew: Ok. On the – Another question on parking. On Sheet A-2.0, there’s a – there are two paragraphs and one is about parking and the other is about the room count variation. There’s the whole narrative about changing the ratio of parking and valet parking and I was wondering what – if there was a Staff comment about that and if putting this paragraph in the drawings gives them – what do we call that? You know, any sort of right to make that change? Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, I think we would like to have the applicant explain that narrative. That’s kind of relatively new. Chair Lew: Yeah, because it makes me kind of – if makes me fairly uncomfortable to approve a project if something influx. Randy, thank you. Mr. Popp: Sure. Again, an organization that builds hotels regularly and has a lot of data about what the appropriate amount of parking is for a hotel, I think that there’s a movement that’s not just local but regional in (inaudible) that says that you shouldn’t build too much parking. It actually increases traffic and makes the opportunity just too simple. We have a traffic report that identifies based on studies at three other adjacent properties that a .7 parking count is all we need. The City regulations only allow a twenty percent reduction and so we’re waffling around about this a little bit but we’re in a conversation with City Staff, Josh Mello and ultimately, I think this will probably be something that the Council vets and I’m not – I’ll leave it to you to talk about it however you like but I think it’s something that the Council will need to weigh in. Our hope is that we’re able to offer a reduction in parking so that we are providing .7 physical stalls and then valet beyond that. The language that we have in there is a little bit different than that and we’ve adjusted since then but the – it’s just a request but it’s not a formal ask at this point. I will point out that one of the reasons that we think this is important to do is it removes that lower level of parking and so it removes all the dewatering associated with that and the complexity of that extra level of excavation. We wouldn’t do that unless we were confident that we had enough parking and we’re confident enough about this that I would tell you, that much like what we did at the Hilton Homewood Suites when we were approving that project. We are open to the concept of restricting parking along San Antonio Road, such that for our frontage area, there is no parking. That all the parking will be within the project. Those are the kinds of things that we’re open to talking about. I think that and my expectation is that this is sort of a Council discussion because it’s a parking question but I just wanted to make sure that you’re fully clear about what we’re suggesting in that language. The reason that it’s on the drawing is to initial the discussion but not to finalize it. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you for that Randy. Then, just for Staff, just a clarification. Is the – in our zoning ordinance, is the – the Planning Director has the authority to reduce the parking requirements. Is it normally just in transit areas or is it – and mixed-use projects, that’s my recollection? I mean… Mr. Ah Sing: There’s a menu of different types of reduction and the maximum amounts are specified that the Director could allow. The whole – if you are looking at the table on that same sheet, that is what’s being proposed. That’s consistent with the code and the current ask. This paragraph and narrative that Randy went through is not a part of the plans, though it is on the sheet of plans but it’s not actually physically been implemented on the plans. I think maybe this would have been more appropriate as a memo or something instead of on the plans. We’ll have that as a revision going forward but as proposed, physically shown on the drawings, it meets the development standards code and the reduction request. Chair Lew: My next question is also on this sheet, which is A-2.0, which is room count variation. The narrative is that the interior of the building is only fifty percent complete at this time and that it would be finished before plan check and that there may be some changes to the room mix. I was wondering if the Staff had any comments about that. It seems to me that – like a change between a king and double City of Palo Alto Page 36 queen is slight; that’s a couple feet as I’m looking at your plans. I’ve seen other hotels –recent hotels where the mix between a studio and a suite is huge and it actually changes the mass significantly and often for the better. I was wondering the Staff’s thought about that? I mean, it seems to me – I don’t know what Randy was thinking about but potentially, to me, that should come back to the Board. I mean, whose knows what the future holds but to me, it’s a potentially huge impact on the look of the building. Mr. Ah Sing: Right, so let – we can hear from the applicant but I think there’s definitely some substantial conformance that we would have to look at when the plans – if this ultimately get approves, then it comes back in for a plan check and if there are changes, then we could bump them up to different levels of review. I’d like to hear at least – we’d like to hear at least from the applicant regarding what that – what they are meaning there in that paragraph. Chair Lew: Randy? Mr. Popp: Sure, so we’re not talking about magnitudes of change here. We’re talking about various subtle refinements and what we meant to say by this, because we are exactly in the position that you are describing, right? We might be switching a king or a double queen or converting a suite into perhaps two studios and we want to make sure that we are maintaining the traffic – excuse me, the parking ratio that is acceptable. What this says is that although we’re still massaging the interior organization of the building slightly and I do mean slightly. Whatever changes we make, we will maintain consistency with the ratios for parking that we’re obligated to. We’re just trying to clarify that. Male: (Inaudible) Mr. Popp: And stay – yeah. What – we are not talking about adding any square footage in any way, right? This would be within the envelope, within the design of the building and that will not change. We’re just talking about internal walls moving around. Board Member Furth: Just to confirm, you’re not talking about changing the elevation that we’ve seen? Mr. Popp: Correct. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: There will be no movement of windows are balconies or – this is pearly interior organization. Board Member Furth: We set our parking requirements on a room basis? Chair Lew: The parking is based on the room count and the public on hotel projects always ask, well then there do employees park and we’ve gone over this on other projects but it’s all within -- the room count and the employees are all built into that room count number. Mr. Popp: Right, so I – it took a little while for me to educate myself about this but the ratio that is developed considers visitors, it considers Staff, it considers all of these things because some people who come in a lift, some who come bring a car, some of the Staff come by bus, some of them come in a car and so there’s this mix. This is – I would say that this is a – this is where some of this becomes an art form and a little bit less precious. The standards that the City sets and the reduction that the Director of Planning and in our particular case, because this project is being forwarded to Council, ultimately Council will adopt. It has to do with all of those factors being considered together. Chair Lew: Ok, another question is being any of the signs included or are those going to be submitted separately? Mr. Ah Sing: Right so the sign package will come later. City of Palo Alto Page 37 Chair Lew: Ok and I have a question for Randy. I have a question for you. Sorry, to interrupt. Mr. Popp: I was just getting some advice. Chair Lew: Is there -- yeah, no, no, no. The signs – so, like on the Marriott Courtyard Building, you originally had both signs on the sides of the building and I think in the last two packages that we’ve seen, one of them has moved to the front façade of the building and it’s just the Courtyard and that’s the one that I was thinking about. Mr. Popp: Wait, I’m getting there. Chair Lew: Is there – great, thank you. Is there any way for that to go back to the side and the reason why I am asking is because it’s – that particular sign is opposite the Greenhouse two entrance so every time they in and every time they go out, they are going to see this big illuminated line. It seems to me that it would be less impact on them if it were on the side of the façade but what are your constraints? Mr. Popp: First I’ll just go back to 2015 and the very early concepts that we showed for the building did have the signage both on San Antonio and at the interior entry court so both locations. We’ve been consistent with that all the way through. I think that we have some flexibility about the size or the – how illuminated that signage is but I think from a branding perspective, particularly from Marriott’s perspective, it’s important to them to have signage on the front of the building. Chair Lew: Are they agreeable to halo lite or are you thinking this is an illuminated… Mr. Popp: No, I would expect that it’s halo lite. Chair Lew: Ok, well that’s better. That’s definitely better. Mr. Popp: Yeah, you know I’ll admit myself that I was pretty surprised when I saw the signage at the Hilton Homewood Suites, which was approved after I had left the project and it’s an internally illuminated sign and I’m not thrilled with how that looks. I think that a sign on the front of the building like this is shown to be a halo (inaudible). Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. I have a question for Staff. One of the speakers asked about the impact of crime and is that a CEQA topic? Is that a CEQA environmental… Mr. Ah Sing: There is a section on public services that deals with police stations, fire services, libraries, schools and whether there’s adequate amount of service there and there was no impact to that level of service. Chair Lew: Ok, but I mean a part of the crime is like – it seems to me to be a socioeconomic issue and not necessarily environmental. Mr. Ah Sing: Right. I guess I would say that is that if there’s crime, that maybe there’s not enough police services or policies stations around so yeah, that’s where that was addressed. Chair Lew: Right. Does Staff have any comments about emergency vehicles? Did – do the plans get routed to police and fire? Mr. Ah Sing: That is – yes, they did a review and they recommended approval of it. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Then, I think we’ve – I don’t think we’ve had it today but I think it’s been mentioned before, a couple time, about the pavement on San Antonio Road. That has been redone and that this would impact that and so I just wanted to point out that there’s a condition of approval number City of Palo Alto Page 38 forty-four on page 157 that says the pavement will have to resurface after the project is completed. It also does mention a moratorium and I was wondering what that –I’m not sure what that is about. Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Ok, thank you for that. Also, another speaker had mentioned about work in the right-of-way and we have a condition of approval number forty-five. It basically says that they have to get a permit to work in the right-of-way and that’s not connected to this permit. In no way do they necessarily get the authority to work in the street by this – by the design review permit –design review approval. Again, that’s number forty-five. Ok, so I am – I was just going to say that – yeah, Randy? Mr. Popp: If you don’t mind, I have just one more thing that I would like to ask our landscape designer to add to the discussion. There was a comment about the native species and a concern from Staff regarding the need to return to the subcommittee about that. I haven’t heard anyone speak about that but I thought I might ask our landscape architect to weigh in because he’s delved into that topic just a little bit. Can you indulge us with that or did you have something…? Chair Lew: Well, I was going to ask about that too so we can do that now and I think Peter had questions about the landscape as well. Yes, Gary, welcome. Mr. Laymon: Thank you. Since we’ve met last, we’ve taken that approach to increase the amount of native plant material and to – for both its drought-tolerant qualities and as well as compatibility with the surrounding environment and the habitat value that it helps to create. We’ve already moved in that direction to help increase the quantities and actually, those materials primarily occur off the structure where there is plenty of soil, where the plants can really thrive and where there’s the most interface with the adjacent properties and such. On a percentage basis, a much higher percentage of the site is now having true natives, as opposed to just drought-tolerant materials. We’re definitely interested in moving in that direction. We would like to try and work with Staff in terms of having that be a condition of approval, such that those objectives are fulfilled as a part of the permitting process. As opposed to coming back to the Board, if that would be acceptable. Chair Lew: As it has – so, this is a condition of approval number seven and as the Staff has worded it right, it’s a subcommittee so it’s not the – at the moment it’s not the full – yeah, not the full Board. Can I – I have some things that I wanted to say though about the landscape. That there are – so like the southern live oaks are non-native… Mr. Laymon: That’s correct. Chair Lew: … but it’s considered desirable for habitat because they have – it’s a food source so there are – so I think that the finding that we have really doesn’t sort of taking that into account but I think that we can – I think that there’s enough knowledge here that we can sort of say that is – those are desirable trees. Mr. Laymon: Yeah, we took a very narrow definition of native to be strict in that regard. There’s a number of other species that are a similar genius like the coffee berry would be a California native and the Italian buckthorn is the same genius but is a different species so we’re getting that in as close as we can. We’re trying to meet really, the broader objectives of the – like the southern live oak are the fastest growing of the oak trees and it is what’s there on the site so it sorts of makes sense to continue to utilize that. I think we’re trying to find the path that takes us to achieve as many of the objectives as possible. Chair Lew: On your landscape sheet, you did a very nice drawing which is on sheet L-2.3, which is the front façade of the building with all of the southern live oaks which they are existing street trees and you’re proposing a new row. Mr. Laymon: That’s right. The existing street trees are the southern live oak, right. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Chair Lew: Ok, so you’re showing them at three-stories, which is maybe like 30-feet high, in the drawing and so my understanding is that tree can grow up to 65-feet but I don’t – I haven’t seen it in this – that’s a fairly new species to be planted here. Mr. Laymon: Yeah, there are some on Page Mill and you can see them kind of near the playfields there. Those are the oldest ones that I am familiar of directly and there are getting to be pretty substantial size. What has been depicted in the renderings is probably a 15-20-years’ time frame but those trees will not stop at that point. They will continue to grow so they will get to be more robust, more dense and have a taller appearance over the long run. Chair Lew: I have a question for you, does it make sense to show – I – well – why I make a statement. I think it may be beneficial to show to the Council the drawing with mature trees beyond the 15-year – 10- 15-year horizon. Mr. Laymon: That can be done. Chair Lew: Because I have a reaction to the drawings set that the buildings look big but when I look at the dimensions, the height, and width, they don’t look that big to me so there’s – I have a disconnect in here. It seems to me that part of that is the – your showing the trees, as you should, at the 10-15-year growth rate but ultimately, this is like a big – I think the big idea of having a double row of southern live oaks – the southern live oak is the tree that way – all the famous plantations used the double rows of oak trees; like Oak Alley and stuff. To me, it’s very compelling and helps mitigate the bulk of the building but I am not sure that the landscaping shows that. I’m not sure that it's clear to everybody and to the public that there’s a bigger landscaping idea for San Antonio Road. Ok, then I think my last comment on landscaping, for you Gary, is that the – I’m still a little squeamish about the 6-foot planting areas on the side yards for the buckthorn and the cypress. I’m not sure where I’m – what my vote is here today but I’m still – yeah, concerned about that. I think all the revisions that you made Randy, are all good. You hit all the things that I wanted you to do. I bring it back to the Board and now it’s our – for a motion. Anybody want to give it a stab? Board Member Baltay: I’m not ready to make a motion yet but I would like to, I guess to be clear on the landscaping. To me, having the entire landscaping package come back to subcommittee is just –oh, I was going to say too much. It’s a big design element and I don’t see how in subcommittee you could do justice to it. If we really aren’t happy with it now, then it’s not there I don’t think. That said, I wonder if we can be more specific on what really are the problems with the landscaping that we can’t just approve it right now? I think these oak trees seem pretty good and why not just let Staff work out the issues with drought tolerant native plants exactly but let them go on their way? So, that’s my comment about the landscaping, Alex, and that it’s just too easy to put it off to the subcommittee and if there really are issues, then I don’t think subcommittee is the place for it. Chair Lew: Ok, so the drought – yeah. This is tough one for me because the language of the finding is to the fullest extent… Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Practical? Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) to the extent that the landscaping utilizes to the (inaudible) practical regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Chair Lew: Ok, I think it’s close. I’m looking at the plant list right now. It’s close. You have to balance the – I mean the landscape architects always have to figure out what can the – what is the owner of the property going to be able to maintain properly and so that’s in the back of my mind as well and that is the practicality of it. City of Palo Alto Page 40 Board Member Baltay: I have to say that I find what’s in front of us seems pretty good to me. Maybe I am missing something but it looks good. Chair Lew: Ok, I can be persuaded. It seems to me that there seem to be some fairly standard plants that we see on every project that might be able to be switched but I think the big decision about putting the southern live oaks on the front is the big – to me, that’s the big decision. I don’t really care about all the podium – the podium landscaping is difficult because they are in planters. Board Member Baltay: Will we be open to modifying condition seven than to just read that they work with the Staff, rather than it comes back to subcommittee? Wynne, maybe that’s something that you seem strong about. Board Member Furth: Oh, I think that’s probably possible. I wonder if – I am worried about – I’m concerned about the terrace level planting because until – I’m dead. These trees are not going to be that high and so I had really hoped for it to be significant and not a little plant huddled in a pot so if you could conceive me that it isn’t a little plant huddled in a pot. It’s going to be big and irrigated and visible from across the street, that would help me. Chair Lew: You’re saying like the olive tree and all those in the courtyard? Board Member Furth: Upon the terraces. Just sort of take me through it. Chair Lew: The podium? Board Member Furth: Up high in the building on the second and third stories. Board Member Gooyer: Well, those just – if that’s a problem then pick a size. Board Member Furth: Advise me. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, for something like that I would say – I mean 15-gallon or 24-inch pots. Board Member Furth: I like 24-pots with irrigation. Board Member Gooyer: But that gets to be an awfully big tree after a while. Board Member Furth: If that’s too big – well, not all trees, right? I think significant, which means – to me, significant means visible as significant greenery across the way. Chair Lew: So… Board Member Gooyer: But this… Ms. Gerhardt: Can I… Chair Lew: I think that in the drawings, some of the -- I read something about 36-inche box trees, at least on the front. Maybe it was just the southern live oaks. Board Member Furth: They are not tiny balconies. Mr. Laymon: With regards to the southern live oak, we’ve increased those to the 36-inch box so they will be more substantial from the get go. We also require that the plant material be contract ground for the project so the contractor won’t be going out there the day before they need to plant and find out whatever is available at the nursery and put it in. They have to tie off the plant material early on in the City of Palo Alto Page 41 process so the plant material is really optimized for this size at the time of planting. We’re expecting those to be robust. Board Member Furth: That should be an instant garden, right? Upon the upper terraces? Mr. Laymon: On the terraces, we have a variety of plant materials. I would characterize them as being sort of larger shrub type materials but they can have fairly open canopies. Typically, the optimum size to getting a plant like that into a container is probably 5-gallon going in. There may be some 15-gallon materials that are appropriate on a case by case basis. Board Member Furth: In what size container? Mr. Laymon: I’m sorry? Board Member Furth: What size container? Chair Lew: 5-gallon, small. Board Member Furth: Is that what you are showing in A-1.8? It looks bigger than a chair. That doesn’t look like 5-gallons to me. Mr. Laymon: The pots themselves are… Board Member Furth: In those drawings. Mr. Laymon: They are about 36-inches in diameter. Chair Lew: I think he is saying that it’s a 5-gallon plant in a larger planter. Board Member Furth: No, I asked about the container size. I understand small plants, better… Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) 5-gallon plant, doesn’t mean that it’s going to go into a 5-gallon pot. Board Member Furth: I understand this. I have a really successful terrace garden in my view but I’m looking at A-1.8 and I’m asking you what size containers you are showing there? Mr. Laymon: Those are about 36-inches in diameter and about… Board Member Furth: If you converted that to gallons, what would it be? It’s more than 5 – way more than 5, right? Mr. Laymon: You could, yeah. What we’ve done or what we’ve proposed to do is to have one larger plant, that would get to have a more substantial canopy and then smaller plants within it which would cascade over the edges of the pots. Board Member Furth: That’s all nice and what were you thinking of the larger plants? The main plant in the container, what were you thinking? Board Member Baltay: Wynne, how about if… Mr. Laymon: We don’t really have trees on the terrace. We have shrubs that get to be – we have a variety of species. I don’t think we have anything specific about that. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Board Member Furth: I’m sorry, just tell me what sheet am I supposed to be looking at to identify the plantings up there because – I mean the reason that I am asking is because we specifically asked for this. It’s not a private as it would be if it was just for internal consumption. Mr. Laymon: We were looking at a variety of plant materials in there that would be evergreen. It would probably be things like palms or other more foliage based plant material but we would be designing that – that’s part of what we would be coming back with as a part of the condition, is we would specifically be establishing every one of those plant species. Board Member Furth: Ok, so we a preliminary plan. Board Member Baltay: Would you like to make that as a condition of – what do you call it? Subcommittee review is the plantings on the balconies because I don’t think that’s defined in the drawings here, Wynne. That the… Board Member Furth: I would. Board Member Gooyer: That’s a little bit easier to manage on a subcommittee level. Board Member Furth: Yeah, I would because I think that these have a more important role in the overall appearance of the building for the next 15-years than the typical terrace and (inaudible) (crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: I think what we are saying is that we’re expecting them to have this size of –at least that of a person. When I am looking at these renderings, these plants are as big or bigger than a person and so that’s sort of the expectation and that’s what – we’re not seeing that described anywhere here but if you could that as… Board Member Gooyer: Size of a person. Board Member Baltay: Well, I don’t know how to put it, Robert. I mean, it’s not a shrub… Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, we do have a sheet, L-3.1. Board Member Furth: Yeah and they are big. They are taller than a person, significantly taller. Board Member Baltay: Exactly, that’s a great schematic idea. We’re asking now on the subcommittee to see something more precise. Board Member Furth: To flush it out. Foliage it out. Board Member Baltay: To give that to us and maybe that would then take the place of condition seven. Board Member Furth: I would appreciate that. Board Member Baltay: I’d like to also shift a little bit but to caution Staff that these outdoor terraces look lovely right now but they will be windy and if the applicant over the course of the design process and permitting process comes back with substantial screening to get wind buffering, in my opinion, that would change the whole thing about how the building looks. It’s not something that I would think is an over the counter kind of back and forth the design Staff. Mr. Lait: And there… Board Member Baltay: If there were 5 or 6-foot walls to give some wind buffering, it might be necessary but it’s not proposed now and I don’t think it would be acceptable without coming back to us. City of Palo Alto Page 43 Mr. Lait: If you are heading toward an approval, that would be an appropriate condition to include in any kind of motion. That any windscreens come back to the Board for review if that was a concern – any – to address that issue. Board Member Baltay: I’m not trying Jonathan, to make a specific motion but rather just to caution Staff that that’s not an acceptable level of give and take. Mr. Lait: I understand and I’m not suggesting that it’s a motion but what I am saying is if you are getting to a motion about the project and if that motion is for approval and you’re concerned about what might happen in the future, put in a condition that says the windscreen or some kind of a wind barrier may be subject to Board review or shall come to Board review if that’s what you are concerned about. Mr. Popp: May I interrupt for a moment? First of all, any significant change to the building’s architecture would trigger coming back for review and we’re aware of that. I’ll also commit to you in having talked to the owner, there will be no wind screens on those balconies. This is what we want them to look like. I am happy to have that as a condition because it won’t be (inaudible) for us. Board Member Furth: I have one possible way to deal with the existing modified condition seven to make it about terraces and that the landscaping should come back to the subcommittee for review and any proposed change in the addition of windscreen – of screening will also be subject to ARB and then it will be easy to track. I think it’s the experience of the ARB that sometimes things are seen as insignificant, which can startle us considerable when we see them on the ground. Board Member Baltay: I’ll tell you what Wynne, can you suggest a phrasing for that number seven? Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) So, condition number seven would be revised to read terraces; the applicant shall return to the Architectural Review Board Subcommittee for approval of terrace landscaping and – period. Any additional screen structures on the terraces shall require an Architectural Review Board approval. Then you know what the process is if it comes up. MOTION Board Member Baltay: I agree. That just seems like they want us too. So, with that, I’m prepared to make a motion that the Board makes the findings in the Staff report, including to change the number seven that we just outlined and to… Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: Yes, Wynne. MOTION AMENDMENT Board Member Furth: I’d like to request a friendly amendment to add a condition that the – Staff needs to help me with where this goes. That the TDM – somewhere after 61, right? On page 160? That the – is it going to be the TDM or the Valley Parking Plan that I want to talk about? What I want to take about is imposing a new condition of no back up into San Antonio. Mr. Lait: Yeah, I would… Board Member Furth: New condition? Mr. Lait: I would make that a separate condition and I can read some language into the record if you would like? Board Member Furth: Sure. This would be a new condition 63? City of Palo Alto Page 44 Mr. Lait: Yeah or… Board Member Furth: Or 62A at the moment. Mr. Lait: It will be a new condition and we’ll renumber as necessary. Vehicle queuing on San Antonio Road is prohibited at all times. The applicant shall ensure on-site vehicle circulation and pick up or drop off operations do not block or impede the free movement of pedestrians, bicyclists or vehicular travel on the sidewalk or roadway on San Antonio Road. For any violation of this condition, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may impose an additional condition related to drop off or pick up restriction, Valet operations, the Transportation Demand Management Plan, site improvements or other operational changes to ensure compliance with this condition. Board Member Furth: I’m fine with that. Board Member Baltay: That’s ok with me. Board Member Gooyer: Me too. Chair Lew: Ok, so I think we should vote on the amendment first, is that the right order? Board Member Furth: It was a friendly amendment and they both accepted it. Chair Lew: Don’t we still… Mr. Lait: If it’s friendly it’s not needed to be voted upon. Then, if you are considering – there was a – it’s probably not necessary but there’s the comment about the signs. It might be helpful to just put a condition that says any future signs shall return to the ARB for approval. Well, I think the signs are coming back so you’re going to review the sign program, right? Ok. I would just put another condition on there. Chair Lew: Sometimes when the Staff says the signs come back for ARB approval doesn’t necessarily mean that it comes back to the Board. Mr. Lait: I would specify that it comes back to the Architectural Review Board. Chair Lew: Does anybody want to weigh in on that? I don’t know if the Board cares. Board Member Furth: No, I care. Board Member Gooyer: That’s pretty much a given, isn’t it? Chair Lew: Ok. Board Member Furth: Are we approving them right now? Chair Lew: No. Board Member Furth: Ok, let’s be clear. Chair Lew: Anybody – I think you have to weigh – Yeah, (inaudible). Board Member Baltay: I’d like to add that condition of approval to the motion. City of Palo Alto Page 45 Board Member Gooyer: I mean, to me that just seems like a waste. I mean adding in a condition that says that you can’t change anything unless you bring it back. Well, that’s sort of a – I mean, that’s pretty much forgoing conclusions. Board Member Furth: I think what’s ambiguous is when you have a set of drawings with the signs drawn on them. It’s not always clear that you haven’t approved the signs. Board Member Baltay: But also, it’s coming back to the Board and not the Staff. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Fine, that’s fine. (crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: (Inaudible) MOTION AMENDMENT Board Member Furth: Then I have one more Alex. The text that you identified on page – sheet A-2.0. I would suggest that – maybe we can just instruct Staff that we’re not approving or commenting or otherwise acting on that. I’d prefer that paragraph would come out and it shouldn’t be here, which is the discussion of possible improvements in parking which might lead to less subterranean whatever. It shouldn’t be here because we know nothing. If you could delete that from the approved set, I would propose that. Chair Lew: Ok, that sounds good. Is that acceptable to the maker of the motion? Board Member Baltay: I’d like to look at it more carefully first. Thank you. Wynne, your concern is that they are going to, in the end, have less parking and not build the lower level. Board Member Furth: No, I’m not concerned. I don’t know what the answer should be but I know that we don’t know and I don’t want it to appear that we’re approving or disapproving this. I just want it out and it shouldn’t be here. I don’t want to create ambiguities. Board Member Baltay: Fair enough, I can support that. Board Member Gooyer: Sure. Board Member Furth: I appreciate that they brought it to our attention. Chair Lew: Ok, are we ready? All in favor? Opposed? Me so that’s a 3-1 and Board Member Kim is recused. MOTION PASSED 3-1 WITH VICE CHAIR KIM RECUSED Chair Lew: That would be me. Mr. Lait: Typically, when we have a dissenting vote, we give the Board Member a chance to express their statements of opposing. Of course, this will be something that the Council will be interested in wanting to know. Chair Lew: Sure, and so I think I do support a hotel use on this site. I do generally support almost all of the project that you have proposed. I think the concerns that I have always had where the side yard plantings. I think I have said that from the very beginning and then also, to a lesser degree, the circular drops off in the front. I think that the Board has always been sort of uncomfortable with that since the very beginning. The – I don’t agree with the neighbor’s argument for a residential project on this site. The zoning doesn’t allow 100% housing project on their current zoning. It would only be a mixed-use project. I think the zoning does allow a large hotel of 2.0-floor area. I would say that our other recent City of Palo Alto Page 46 hotels in South Palo Alto where 1.75-floor area and that’s like the Hilton Garden Inn and the Hilton Homewood Suites. We did – do have a 2.0-floor area at the Clement Hotel and it seems to me though that you’re just trying to fit in a little bit too much. If you are taking out a little bit of square footage, it seems to me that would help with reducing the number of parking spaces that you need. You would get a little bit larger planting areas on the side property line. I do think the project is generally compatible with the neighborhood. I think you have made design linkages in architecture and landscaping and I think you are very close, in my mind, -- I’m on the fence about this one but it seems like since there was dissenting – since there were a lot of neighborhood opposition, that I did want to just acknowledge that. There could be ways of making it slightly better and more compatible with the neighborhood. So, congratulations. We will see you – I think you are going to the Council soon. Is that on the agenda – on the Council’s agenda? June… Mr. Lait: Yeah, June 12th. Chair Lew: June 12th so that’s right around the corner. I will be there and we’ll see you there. So, great. Thank you, Randy. Are we ready to move onto the next item or do we need – does anybody need to take a quick break? A very short break and then we will hear item number four. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 260 California Avenue [16PLN-00352]: Request for a Hearing on the Director’s Tentative Approval of a Minor Architectural Review for an Outdoor Seating Area. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P). For more information, contact the project planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Lew: We are ready for item number four which is a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter; 260 California Avenue. Request for a hearing on the Director’s tentative approval of a minor architectural review for an outdoor seating area. Environmental assessment is it’s exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Guideline Section 15301 for existing facilities. The zone district is CC(2)(R)(P). We have Graham Owen, our project planner. Welcome. Mr. Graham Owen: Thank you, Chair Lew. My name is Graham Owen and I have been working with the applicant and the hearing request for on this application. Yes, as you said, this a conditional use permit and a minor architectural review application that has been tied into one. The project is for a new restaurant at 260 Cal. Ave to occupy tenant space in the ground floor of the new building that was built about 2-years ago. As a component of that restaurant moving in, they’ve requested two entitlements. One is for minor architectural review for an outdoor seating area and then the other if for a conditional use permit to allow alcohol sale in conjunction with the restaurant. Staff – they were both Staff level approvals but we – and we approved both on April 6th. We did receive a request for a hearing on April 19th for both of the entitlements. We had – the Planning Commission is the hearing body for the conditional use permit. We had that hearing last night and then we are having the hearing for the architectural review now. Just so you know a little bit of recent background, we had the hearing last night as I mentioned. The PTC is the hearing Committee for the PUC. We had a discussion about the hearing request and the reasons for the hearing request, which don’t relate so much to the alcohol use or the restaurant use per say but more to the gross floor area of the building and the associated parking because there were some questions about that. We’ve gone through – we went through with the Planning Commission on those issues and presented an At Places memo which is similar to what we have presented to you here today, which includes a FAR diagram which describes the gross floor area of the site and how it would be used between the restaurant use and the office use and the exempt areas and the garage. So, with that, the Planning Commission deliberated on the FAR diagram, as well as Staff modified condition of approval and ended up recommending approval of the project, 4-0-1 with one abstention. Just so you have a little bit of background, here is the site plan for the project with the first floor overplayed onto the site plan so at the bottom is Cal. Ave. and then the areas that are shown in the gray, would be the areas that are served by alcohol. This is a site plan that is more for the conditional use permit and showing those areas that – where you would have alcohol stills. The other areas that are City of Palo Alto Page 47 shown with greater detail are the back of house functions, so the kitchen is mostly and then the ancillary functions like the bathrooms for example. This is a zoomed in site plan for the outdoor seating area, which shows the area in question which has clay planters that would define the space where people would be able to sit for going to the restaurant. It also shows an arrow which has the ingress and egress out of the front door of the restaurant, which would pass through the clay planters that are proposed. As I mentioned, the reasons for the hearing request and I believe we will hear from the hearing requester momentarily but it had to do more with gross floor area and also with parking – the associated parking that has to go with this gross floor area. When we received the hearing request, we – as a result of the hearing request, we determined that an error had been made by including the outdoor seating area that’s proposed in front of the restaurant towards the gross floor area of the site. Per the code, it’s a covered service area and so it is required to be parked, as well as the inclusion of the gross floor area. With that, we also – excuse me – we also determined that some areas that are down in the garage – the below grade garage contains some storage areas. This was with the original entitlement of the building and those are currently chain linked off from the rest of the garage and since they have a function unrelated to parking, they are not considered exempt from gross floor area and therefore, put the building over the 2 to 1 FAR that’s permitted on the site. With that, we worked with the applicant and discussed a couple of solution with the hearing requester as well. One of them would be to remove the chain link fencing and thereby eliminating any of the distinction between exempted areas and non-exempted areas. Essentially, if you remove the chain link fencing and don’t allow storage down in those areas, it’s just interstitial garage space so it would be considered exempt. The other options would be to retain the existing chain link fence but have those area dedicated exclusively for bicycle parking. The Planning Commission or the Transportation Commission considered both of those options and ultimately recommended that the chain link fencing be removed since it’s just a cleaner approach. One thing about the parking is the parking that was provided with the original entitlement of the building included onsite parking spaces as well as 56 spaces into the assessment district. With the intensification of use from retail that was originally shown in the ARB plans for this area to restaurants, you have a higher parking intensity with a restaurant use and so an additional two spaces would be required above what is currently provided on this site. The applicant has proposed to provide those two spaces with a puzzle lift system, which would be in conformance with the code that we just adopted along such lifts. With that, we can go into the gross floor area calculation if you would like. I know the applicant has a presentation and plans to discuss those – that drawing. With that, I’ll leave it at that and let the hearing requester, I believe go next and then we will hear from the applicant as well. Staff at this point has determined that the project meets the development standards for the district and for the use. Therefore, we recommend that the ARB recommend approval of the ARB – excuse me, of the minor architectural review application with the modified conditions that you have you in you At Places memo. Chair Lew: Ok, and so Mr. Levinsky you have 10-minutes. Mr. Jeff Levinsky: Before I start, Graham, do you have the mouse or… Mr. Owen: Yeah, I was going to pull it up. Mr. Levinsky: Good afternoon. Board Members and Staff and everyone. I was actually quite pleased yesterday to see the revised floor plan and numbers. However, I since have had an opportunity to study it because I only received it last evening and there are some serious problems with it. These are from the plans that we received from the City in April and I’ve tried to highlight there the square footage that is assigned to the ground floor. When you add it up, the three parts, the restaurant, the office and the recycling/trash room which was exempted but we’re not saying is included. That comes to 5,227-sqaure feet. You might want to write that number down. Graham had kindly sent me a spreadsheet of his own that he used to try to calculate the parking and it also says that the ground floor of the building, the same area, is 5, 227- square feet. If you look at the plans that you were given and try to add up the amount of square footage on the ground floor. First, the part for the office comes to 1,281-square feet. The part for the restaurant comes to 3,680-square feet and that’s not including the part out in the front of the building, which is not in any of these calculations. If you add those two numbers up, it comes to 4,961-square feet. That is that these plans say that the interior square footage of the ground floor is 4, City of Palo Alto Page 48 961-square feet, which 266-square feet missing from what the plans that the City had previously approved for this building before that I requested a hearing on. Somewhere last night, 266-square feet disappeared. The gross floor area changed as well. In the plans that Graham had provided, the building was 5-square feet under its FAR limit, which was 27,018-square feet. Now, what did they do? They decided – they agreed to add back in the trash room so that added 172-sqauare feet. They removed 72- square feet of storage and that’s a 100-square foot nicely so if it was 5-square feet under, not it ought to be over by 95-square feet. If you look at the plans, the plans show that it is – it’s right here on the plans that they are total building GFA – it says 26,847. Somehow this building shrank, even though they put more square footage. That’s really not possible. If you make a correction, that is that you put back in the 266-square feet, the building is over the legal FAR. Adding back in just a few square feet would trigger it being over its legal FAR. There are some other problems that if you look at it -- for example, they agreed to share the stairs and there’s a thing under the office and it says shared stair one exit. There is 12-feet and shared stair two exit is 88-square feet but there’s no other place that those are shared with so there’s like missing parts of that. These plans are also not marked as coming from the architect. All the previous plans that we saw had an architect's name and the seal and so forth but these have the name of the construction company on them. None of this was discussed last night. No one spoke about this. There was no disclosure that the buildings had plans to change in this manner. The Planning Commission had no idea, when they discussed this matter last night, of this – that there are these 266 discrepancies in the plans from what we have been previously given, I believe. With that, there’s a serious problem obviously with these plans. I do want to – they agreed to include the trash rooms so that part of my letter that you received, you don’t have to discuss. There are still issues about the common areas and how those get split. I’ve tried to simplify that down here. This table here shows what was approved by the ARB in 2012 and the way the building plans were presented to you, there was 233-square feet of common area signed to the restaurant. When the plans were submitted to the City for this go around, zero square feet were assigned to the restaurant. The latest plans show 87-sqaure feet so we’ve climbed back a little bit not really all the way. There are some real puzzles here. For example, what I thought I heard last night was that they don’t want to assign the stairs and the elevator any portion to the restaurant but there’s a basement storage for the restaurant and the bike storage is in – day long bike storage is in the basement as well. The restaurant workers are going to need to go down there for storage and need to go down there for – to put their bikes. It’s still not clear quite how they get up. I have a question about ADA and that is, if you can’t use the elevator – if they are not saying that the restaurant shares its part of – gets a share of the part of the elevator, does that mean that people – restaurant workers are not allowed to use the elevator? They are obliged to use the stairs and is that ADA compliant. Also, we were not given the calculations for how they came up with their numbers at all. The outdoor area has been one ongoing source of confusion. You probably all understand the plans for this so I’ll just skip through that. As you’ve heard, the law does require that roofed – permanently roof but partially enclosed or unenclosed building featured used for sales, service, displayed storage or similar uses does count as floor area and do have to be parked. In the plans, as we’ve seen them, the City is counting part of it but not another part of it. Last night we were shown a diagram where we were told 150-square feet only will be outside but the plans still did not reflect that. We have not seen plans that show 150-square foot area as being on what will be granted for them. We do point out that the servers are going to need to go through the entrance door to bring food and menus and drinks and such to the customers and so forth. So, we consider that part of the service area and not exempted and as I said in my letter – Well, I’ll skip through this to save time. As I said in my letter, the – in order to be – put seating area out on the sidewalk, if has to be eating area according to the code. You can’t just put any old thing on the sidewalk in order – it has to be eating area. For the purposes of the sidewalk encroachment, the City is considering the whole are out there eating area but the City hasn’t been doing is considering an eating area for the purpose of gross floor area and to us that doesn’t make sense. That is should be that if its eating area under the law, it should be eating area consistently under the law. It’s sort of an Alice In Wonderland thing where the restaurants can enclose more and more space and not count it as FAR. I have a recommendation and that is that – you know, please ask the applicant about the inconsistency in the plans and you might want to consider continuing the item so that we can have an accurate set of plans to discuss. Thank you very much. Chair Lew: Ok and so now we have Mark Conroe and you will also have 10-minutes. City of Palo Alto Page 49 Mr. Mark Conroe: Ready? Honorable Members of the ARB, City Staff and ladies, and gentlemen. My name is Mark Conroe and I am the original developer of the building, one of the owners and representing the applicant today. Last night, after several hours of discussion in front to the PT—Planning and Transportation Commission where three Palo Alto residences spoke in favor of the project and another 10 submitted letters of support for the project. The PTC voted 5-0 with one abstention. Actually, Graham, I think it was 5-0 and not 4-0 but there were six members I think there. The one abstention really was in our favor because they wanted us to have a solution that allowed for more outdoor dining, whereas the FAR calculations limited it. In summary, the PTC agreed with the Planning Director and the Planning Staffs conclusion recommendation that we are code compliant in all respects, including with the FAR and parking. Based on the plans that you see before you and the revised area calculations. I’ll try to quickly address Mr. Levinsky’s arguments. Some of the problems is that every time we address his comments, there’s a whole new slew of comments so all the calculations he just threw out, which I don’t think make any sense and I’ll try to address them. I am reacting to – in the moment. Let’s step back for a second and look at the big picture because we are sort of in the weeds and I want to give some perspective. We spent the past four years trying to find the right tenant for this space, this long-dormant space that’s been boarded up. The building construction was completed two and a half years ago and we moved in all the space except for the restaurant tenant – the office tenant that is. It’s mainly an office building with the ground floor restaurant. The restaurant is about a little more than ten percent of this space. Two years ago, after looking at about 100 different restaurant candidates, we found protégé and we felt lucky about it. They offer something unique to Palo Alto and I think they will be building a world class restaurant. That’s good for Palo Alto and it will bring some renown – they talked about bringing a culinary training to up and coming chefs. These are two world class restaurant tours. City zoning and smart urban planning encourage active pedestrian in order for ground floor uses and protégé is such a use. We started the approval process about 18-months ago. We submitted a full application about 9 or 10-months ago. Since then, we have been dogged by Mr. Levinsky through – and have been repeatable been delayed. We have been sincere and responsive at every turn to what City Staff has asked us to do. We’ve responded and done everything that they wanted us to do. We – I’ve reached out personally, to Mr. Levinsky 2-months ago and got no return. City Staff and I have repeated emails asking City Staff to allow me – to set up a meeting with Mr. Levinsky and finally, City Staff said that we’ve met with them and they are indifferent meeting with you because their issues are code and policy. I think that really summarizes where we are. This is really a process of delay to kill the project and keep it boarded up another 4-years. This has caused huge hardship to us personally and to the two restaurants who I convinced 2-years ago to come to Palo Alto because it would be a great place to do business. It’s an entrepreneur town and they are entrepreneurs. At Mr. Levinsky’s urging, we agreed to rip out the 700-square feet that was approved by the ARB and the basement storage. It proved in 2013 in order to comply with parking and FAR. Basically, it put us over our FAR limit so we complied with that. Let me – basically what we’re talking about is a few square feet. He’s talking 200 but I think if you actually look at real numbers it’s maybe 13-square feet on a 45,000-sqaure foot building. That’s what we’re (inaudible) over and we’re looking – and because of all these delays, we are very, very close to losing this tenant. They are very frustrated and I’m very frustrated with this continual process of delay. Frankly, if I wondered if it’s about outdoor design or if it’s about parking ratios or FAR or about liquor licenses. It seems more just a strategy to frustrate and stop progress but let me address quickly his comments as much as I can. Very simply put but if you look at the exhibit in front of you and these numbers do, in spite of what he says… Female: (Inaudible) Mr. Conroe: Yes, and I’ll quickly – you can – the upper floors are the blue – light blue on the left and you can ignore that. You can ignore the garage in the basement except for the little purple space which is just the storage which remains in the dark gray or the existing garage storage and the purple. The only thing that we’re really quibbling over is – assuming the numbers tie out, which they do, is whether this abstract and spacious speculated argument that there might be somebody whose goes to the restaurant at lunch, who walks through the lobby because they park behind the building. If we wanted to go down that rabbit hole, what you would find is that its 13-square feet. Simply take the ratio and I’ve talked to office tenant about how many people they have going through the lobby and how many employees they City of Palo Alto Page 50 have and vendors they have, which is about 200. Then you look at the number of customers at lunch that comes by. They have eighty-sixed seats and you assume seventy-five percent occupancy and you assume twenty-five percent of those people parked behind the building and seventy-five percent – so I have run the numbers and it’s allocated 13-square feet for the stairs that go down to the garage. The only reason the restaurant needs to go to the garage is to access160-square feet of storage space. There is no ADA issue there. They can go down the stairs and I assume the person who is carrying up these heavy boxes to the restaurant – but even if we did run down that rabbit hole, you’d find that it’s a few more square feet than that. (Inaudible) the plugin this whole thing is garage storage. We started with 400, it’s dropped now to 160. If we have to allocate a few square feet of the lobby or the elevator, it will drop to 150 or 140 or 130 and that’s the net result of all this. It has nothing to do with – it doesn’t – all we are is shifting the responsibility of space from the office tenant to the restaurant tenant. Then that result is that we just take it out of the storage. The – really quickly on the square footage and I have -- I can submit this or hand this to you but if your simple look – to tie out the numbers, the allegation that the numbers don’t make sense but they actually do make sense. Staff has looked at them but this is the original – I can submit this but the original ARB approval. If you look at this, there are 5,424-square feet. If you take the numbers shown in this diagram for the common area on the ground floor, including the restaurants is 5,475. It’s actually grown by 51-square feet and it actually hasn’t shrunk by 200 – whatever number he used, 266. So, nothing has disappeared and actually, what we’ve done is we’ve measured the building and actually noted what the actual spaces --- really is was started with Mr. Levinsky, a couple of months ago, he was questioning – he does not question now but he was questioning the size of the restaurant space so we field measured it. On his smoke screen about the architect. The architect for protégé is the person on the plans. The architect record for the building is Defcon Design. They have an architectural division there. The architect recorded and they stamped all the plans and that’s who is responsible for the building. We’re not talking about the restaurant here. We’re talking about allocation of FAR and square footages in the building at large. We’re essentially being audited. The building essentially having a private audit against it. From (inaudible) on all the square footage unrelated to the restaurant and we’re compliant with that. We’ve done that and it all ties out. The reason – he sorts of sounds like he’s complaining that we actually have lower gross floor area than we did a couple weeks ago and that all has to do – we’re toggling back and forth between meeting parking and meeting Far. The punch line is that now our gross floor area has gone down. Part of the – two things happened yesterday. One is that we greeted Mr. Levinsky urging to add back the exemplary recycling room, which we have since done that and that’s reflected in the plans before you, which the Planning Commission, again approved last night. Also, there’ s the exit for the – this is getting a little bit of an abstraction but the – for the garage parking in the basement, you have to get out of the garage and there is required exiting. Staff says the exiting that is dedicated for the garage in the basement is exempted so we made that adjustment. Originally, it wasn’t exempted in the original plan because no one thought we would get to this level of audit. The numbers tie out and the Staff agrees, the Planning Commission agrees, and still, I don’t think Mr. Levinsky will ever agree because I’m sure it will be – by all means, I strongly, strongly urge you, don’t continue this item. It will kill this deal, we’ll be sitting with another restaurant, we’re – this was approved a couple months ago by the Planning Director and what’s been done is that at the last possible date, they submit an appeal. Then they keep dragging it out in hopes that we don’t move forward. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you. Ok, so we will bring it back to the Board and then we will have a rebuttal period. Mr. Lait: The – is there nobody else to speak on the item? Chair Lew: Well, we do have the… Mr. Lait: No other public testimony? Chair Lew: We do have Anthony… Mr. Lait: Ok, the applicant team. City of Palo Alto Page 51 Chair Lew: Right but I don’t have any – my understanding is that this was supposed to be within the 10- minutes. Mr. Lait: Yeah. Chair Lew: So – but he could speak as a public speaker, right? Mr. Lait: Yes. No. We’re – that’s part of the applicant team so if you don’t have any other speakers then I would suggest at this point that the applicant’s time sort of ran out there at the end. You can afford the applicant an additional 10-minutes to offer a rebuttal although there’s not much more, I don’t think to say but that will the applicants call. If he declines to come to the podium, then I would give Mr. Levinsky an opportunity to speak in rebuttal for up to 10-minutes and then I would have the Board do its deliberation. I would do it now if it’s being declined. Chair Lew: I – so, when I don’t have any public speaker cards… Male: (Inaudible) Mr. Lait: Well, I can take a look at that but I – let me just make sure I got the… Male: (Inaudible) Mr. Lait: So, no, it’s the appellant's rebuttal, in this case, followed by the applicant’s rebuttal. It is as I stated but you have a card from Anthony and Anthony could probably speak for up to 10-minutes, if you wanted to, as a rebuttal. Mr. Anthony ??: (Inaudible) Mr. Lait: No, so let me just stipulate for procedurally what’s going on here. We’ve heard the – from the appellant and I use that with a small a, it’s not been formally appealed; the hearing requester first as set forth by rules in your procedures. You then heard from the applicant. You have no other cards to speak on this matter. The next course of action is then for the applicant to offer any rebuttal. You – I know that Anthony, I think has an interest in speaking. Afterward, Mr. Levinsky has an opportunity to do his rebuttal up to 10-minutes. Thereafter, the public hearing may be closed and you may deliberate on the matter. So, at this point, if the applicant wants to have a rebuttal, this is the time. Male: (Inaudible) Board Member Furth: Excuse me, I’m sorry Jonathan. Which rules are you quoting from? I’m not finding any of this in the set of rules that I have. Mr. Lait: You have architectural rules – procedural rules. Board Member Furth: Yeah. I’m sure they are there but I just can’t find them. Which page? Ms. Gerhardt: Under quasi-judicial hearings. Board Member Furth: On page 14, maybe? Mr. Lait: It’s page four. Board Member Furth: Four? So, I’m looking at the wrong thing when I am looking at the Architectural Review Board Procedural Rules as downloaded from the website? I’m just trying to follow you. Mr. Lait: Can I see your cover sheet? Oh, you know, I don’t think it is page four. City of Palo Alto Page 52 Chair Lew: Ok, so you do have 10-minutes and then we will hear from Mr. Levinsky and bring it back to the Board and you don’t have to use the 10-minutes. Board Member Furth: But you are free too. Mr. Lait: So, just as Mark is approaching the podium, let me just explain. Typically, we have a presentation, which we heard from Mr. Levinsky. We then hear a presentation from the applicant. Your presentation included a presentation but also a rebuttal in that same moment in time. In another scenario, you may have 10-20 people speaking about the project for which you would come back and have a rebuttal to any of the comments heard. There are no comments heard so you have the option to choose to rebut further if you choose procedurally or not but you’re next if you want to take advantage of that opportunity and then the hearing requester follows. Mr. Conroe: I’m just – ok. I’m just reading what it says here. It says that each person has 10-minutes but plus 10-minutes rebuttal so it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense that I speak and then rebut – have another 10-minutes. I would prefer to speak after so I can hear his response so I can actually advance the conversation because if he says something, I have no chance to respond to it then I think we’re sort of stuck. Mr. Lait: So, he has already spoken. I mean he has made his presentation and I think the timer – we should start the timer for the 10-minutes. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Well, thank you, Jonathan, for pointing me to the right place for the rules and it does indeed say that the appellant starts and then the applicant – then the project applicant speaks and then the project applicant rebuts himself and then the appellant rebuts it but that makes no sense. I was going to suggest that we move to waive the rules. Mr. Lait: Right, it does make sense. I mean it anticipates a public dialog about the matter but I guess – yeah, you don’t have it. You’ve heard the two points and so now we have an opportunity that I would like somebody to take advantage of or not so we can that we can advance the meeting. Mr. Conroe: Again, my suggestion is to offer some time to Mr. Levinsky and try to advance the ball. Hear what he has to say about what I said and then give me 3-minutes at the end just to comment on what he has to say because I really – taking another 10- minutes doesn’t make any sense to me. Mr. Lait: Again, I want to be really clear about this. This is your chance to do a rebuttal. You have up to 10-minutes. Mr. Conroe: Ok, this our last time to speak? Mr. Lait: This is your last chance to speak. Mr. Conroe: Good, we will have Anthony to take 2 or 3-minutes and then I’ll reinforce maybe a couple points that I made. Thank you. Mr. Anthony Secviar: I’ll try to be short. Board Members good morning. My name is Anthony Secviar. I am the owner of the proposed restaurant, protégé, to be located at 260 Cal. Avenue. I can’t speak to the technical aspect that is being discussed today but I would like to take the opportunity to read a summary of my experience with this project. I don’t know how much relevant this will have this your decision but I think it does make a point and stress the sense of urgency we have in coming to a conclusion. My partner Denison Kelly and I decided to make Palo Alto our home for Protégé and I’ve spent the better apart of the last 2 ½- years scouting for a location, planning our design and planning for permits. It is City of Palo Alto Page 53 our dream to have a world class restaurant here in the heart of the Silicon Valley. To train employees the culinary arts, to employ people and to serve our community. After nearly 10-months of delays related to permits, to say we are frustrated is but the tip of an iceberg. I have three children, all under 6-years old and together with my wife, left the successful and lucrative job in Southern California soon after filing for permits last August. We had saved enough money to support our family for the expected 3-month permit approval process and I wake up today nearly 10-months from filing and I am talking to you. We have had zero financial support, we have not taken any investors money for personal profit, we are not part of a corporation, we are not part of a restaurant group. We are two citizens and local residents with a vision and a desire to open a small business in Palo Alto. We decided to open in Palo Alto for a number of reasons, the most obvious being the effluence of the demographic, the cultural diversity, and the density of population but really appeals to me and would appeal to me to come to Palo Alto was this feeling of entrepreneurship that historical this area has embraced. The community has embraced our vision and have all been generally supportive and excited to see our restaurant start but in contrast, the permitting process has been anything but smooth and welcoming. Frankly, it’s been frustrating and fairly confusing. I am sensitive to due process and respect the need to be in compliance. We have had several – multiple planners assigned to our project and while we have spent an incredible amount of time and money to make changes requested by the City and those in opposition. These changes have led to further issue and additional delays. We have done everything this City as asked us to do and may made multiple compromises to our plan to appease our opposition and Mr. Levinsky. To finally receive approval and support from the Planning Department only to have it appealed was devastating; both mentally and financially. I have met with Mr. Levinsky and those in opposition and it is, in my opinion, his visions and his interpretation of the City Code are not in line with the Planning Department and the majority. I understand that Mr. Levinsky feels that it’s his responsibility to audit the City’s decisions and I commend him for his diligence but I feel it’s unfair to halt our project so he can set a president for code and policy change. I am not an expert but I can only hope and imagine that there are a better approach and a better – more appropriate avenue to address these issues with the City’s code interpretation and make a positive change. The only entity that I have legally that can tell me whether I am in compliance or not has issued an approval. So, to be stuck in neutral is very frustrating. We feel hostage to create a debate in how the City enforces laws we are following. We feel strongly about the addition of our restaurant where two local owners are on site, hands on in every aspect of this business and making a connection with the community as a positive addition to the culinary scene here. We simply want to move forward and I humbly ask you to have a sense of urgency in coming to a clear and concise recommendation to move our project forward. Thank you. Mr. Conroe: Very briefly just retouching on the arguments made. Again, I think there’s – it’s frustrating to have this level of kind of rehashing an officiation but the diagram does speak for itself. Running through every quickly. The areas that we are talking about are on the purple, not the blue, and not the pink. The pink are the common areas that he wanted us to allocate and he agrees with the allocation. The only thing that we are talking is the – I think the yellow – well, I’m not sure what we’re talking about but the numbers tie out and they are slightly – instead of 5,424, it’s 5,475. If you simply add the numbers below that – the first two numbers. If you add the 265, 148, 126, 53, 112, 88, 489, 3593, 43, 24 and 20, that equals I think, 5,475 and the ARB approval – number he actually cited are 5,475. That’s – we’re 51- square feet more and not 266 less. On the outdoor dining, it says – it’s a separate point but simply put, we have – we’re only using a portion of the outdoor dining to meet our FAR and to meet the parking. We are using 150-square feet period, end of story. Planning Staff understands that Planning Commission understands that and there’s no reason to make it more complicated than that. So, we are in compliance. Again, we can chase our tail about these numbers forever but the –everybody except Mr. Levinsky understands and agrees with the numbers; the Planning Commission, planning Staff, Planning Director and ourselves. If we had more time I would lead you through a much more detail analysis but thank you for your time. I strongly urge you to take action today. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you and Mr. Levinsky, you have 10-minutes. Mr. Levinsky: It’s sunny here. Thank you. I’d like to address several issues that have come up. First of all, the overall context for this is that I think you all know it’s parking and that we have a parking critic on City of Palo Alto Page 54 Cal. Ave and the –we fight over, and over it again. The City is trying to spend millions of dollars and also creating an RPP program to try to offset the parking shortage that’s on Cal. Ave so we don’t want more buildings that create parking problems by exceeding their parking allowance. Emails have been sent to the City that say “this project has been unfairly delayed for about a year by individuals who have a political agenda.” That statement just can’t be true because of we only – I only got the plans a couple of months ago. That’s the only time – the first time that we actually knew what was being discussed in this space. We’ve had no – there’s no ability by which we could have delayed the project before that if that was really our goal. The goal is not to delay the project. The goal is to make sure that the laws are followed and as you’ve heard, the City agree that the outdoor area should count at FAR, which they had not told the applicant. The applicant had not submitted plans that counted that as a FAR so to blame us for having discovered a problem that wasn’t caught by the architect and unfortunately by the City, it seems unfair. It seems that if they want plans to go through quickly, they should submit plans that don’t have these problems. I still believe from what I have heard that the numbers that I gave earlier are correct. That the building did shrink. Now we were told once before that when the building – the number didn’t jive with the 2012 numbers. That they’ve gone out and measured the building and discovered that it was smaller and that was the reason why the numbers on the architect submitted plans, the plans that we were given by the City were what they were and we excepted that. The plans submitted last night are 266-square feet smaller on the ground floor than what we have been given before by the City and had been approved by the City as correct. Here we are, we’re causing the problem because the numbers changed that we’re given. I don’t think that’s correct so I urge you to pull out your calculators and add it up and I think that you will find that I am right. If you want, I can put the slide back up on that I showed. Would that be helpful? I’m hearing – I don’t know if you can respond. Chair Lew: I think we might – when I bring it back to the Board, I think we might have questions about the numbers. Mr. Levinsky: Very good. Ok. I’m going to save everybody time and wrap it up and thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Levinsky. So, I am going to close the public portion of the meeting and bring it back to the Board. Peter? Board Member Baltay: Yes. I wish I could say thank you but I can’t. This is frustrating for everybody here. Ok, they are proposing to put in a restaurant without making physical changes to the building. It seems to me, talking to the Board, we ought to go back to the approved ARB plans for this building and that’s the FAR ratio calculations or whatever you call it, we should be sticking to. I think that this business of – as somebody said, we auditing the building is just plain wrong. They are not modifying the building and we shouldn’t be recounting it. We should be trusting the way we initially did these calculations for storage, for trash, percentages for stairs that are one way or another. When I pulled up the original drawings from 2012 Hayes Group Plans, they show the building as having 27,000-square feet of floor area counting toward the FAR in total. They give a breakout here for commercial and retail space, which are fairly similar to these numbers. They are all within a few hundred feet back and forth but it seems to me that it’s just really inappropriate for us to go back and recount that. We don’t have the set of plans, we haven’t been given the detailed look at it, Staff hasn’t been given the detail and we’re much wiser to accept what the previous Board as approved, what the City has approved and what has been built. That said, the building was built 27,000-square feet of FAR. It seems to me that unless they want to go ahead and remodel the building, that’s the number we are working with. That’s our baseline. I think that the applicant has now given us drawings claiming they have remeasured it and when I add up these numbers, it comes in some 400-square feet less give or take and honestly, that raises a big question mark in my mind. Was the building that different from the ARB originally but I think it’s inappropriate for us to even be questioning that. That’s point number one is that I think we need to just take the building at face value as it is and not reopen the question of partitioning of space, trash rooms, basements, storage areas. It’s all existing and it was approved at the time. I hate to bring this up now but when I take – the second thing, the applicant wants to put a restaurant and they want to put some outdoor seating so I dug up the code about outdoor seating and respectfully, I agree with Staff initial interpretation. I believe that outdoor seating – as long as it’s accessible to the general public, that’s part City of Palo Alto Page 55 of the definition which has not been included in all these things, should not be counted towards FAR. It seems to me that’s not the intent of the code. We’re not trying to make every sidewalk café count the table area outside as part of the FAR. If you go around town and a lot of outdoor Cafes in front of restaurants have spaces that wouldn’t logically be part of the volume or the mass of the building. The intent is here being not for that kind of space. The building was built with a heavy-duty glass canopy that shelters potential sitting or pedestrians walking by. It seems to me that it might be reasonable to say that the applicant ought to make these planters and enclosures things that are temporary – they are on wheels and they can be pushed around. Maybe at the end of the business, they push them back against the side of the building, which is probably what they are going to do anyway because it would be on the public right-of-way but honestly, that’s not FAR. That’s not part of the size of the building and that’s not what we want to be encouraging in our town. We don’t want builders to start counting these sidewalk areas because all of a sudden, they are going to, well, muzzle and enclose it then. We are going to lose these wonderful spaces, which is what we are trying to make. I think, with all respect, we’ve just not been interpreting this gross floor area count here and we should just let them put whatever outdoor seating is appropriate for the safety of the sidewalk and for their business. That said, when I went out and I did this twice now and measured it out, I think they want to have much more than 150-square feet of seating out there. The building seems to have three distinct spots where you would put tables and I can easily imagine that being a lovely place and we would like to have that. I guess it’s more like 400- square feet. I’m fine with that and that’s going to make the town better, the street more lively and I don’t think that’s FAR. I think as a Board, we should be clear about that. I’ll pass you guys the definition I’ve pulled out from the code. To me, it’s a second non-issue that we shouldn’t be trying to count that and I think it’s important, not because in this case we should just move this project along but we don’t want to establish that concept that outdoor Cafes are FAR on a building. It’s Pandora’s box to try to count that. Is the seating across the property line or not – that means FAR – that’s outside of your property still counts towards the sides of the building? That’s not the intent of FAR. Then I will come back to the third thing, which I think is a more legitimate issue. To the owner of the building, you built this building claiming this space was going to be used for retail purposes. You are now changing it to restaurant purposes. That has a different requirement for parking spaces so to expect that it’s an easy and quick application, without proposing how you are going to deal with that difference is not reasonable. You are asking for a change in use, which would trigger more parking requirements and in your initial applications, you didn’t really address that. Of course, the community is not happy. You’ve been here all morning and we were talking about having to spend millions to build a parking garage because we haven’t been vigilant on our parking regulations in this neighborhood, for this building. This building was built, honestly under parked and now to say that you’ve been delayed because neighbors are upset. Well, they are upset because of the parking. It comes down to the parking again, likes it done all morning long. To my way of thinking, when you are adding outdoor seating, that legitimately affects the parking load of the restaurant and should affect the calculation. What I would like to see us do is take the additional – the area of the restaurant, plus the additional area of the outdoor seating, calculate what additional parking load that imparts to the building. I think it’s about four or six spaces. Then the question comes down to how are you going to mitigate or provide that parking and that’s something that the Architecture Board isn’t going to give you answers to but I think it’s something that you could come up way to do it. To me – again, I have three parts to this. First of all, let’s not recount the building. Let’s stick to the numbers that the Architectural Board and the City agreed to 5-years ago. Secondly, let’s not establish a president of counting outdoor sitting areas in restaurants as FAR of the building. That’s not the intention and lastly, let’s get serious about making sure the building – the changes to the building comply with the parking requirements and that they provide legitimate amount of parking. So, after we’ve spoken, I have some idea about how to do the parking perhaps that makes sense because I’m not sure throwing puzzler lifts in there does it but that’s my two senses. Board Member Gooyer: I agree completely. The one thing is that looking at this, putting in a puzzler parking system downstairs, I think is just going to – is a way to cut off your nose to spite your face. Nobody is going to us those things; not for coming in for lunch for an hour. Sit there and try to play around with one of those things. They are just going to park somewhere else. If there is an assessment district based on this, why can’t we just add the parking space to the assessment district? City of Palo Alto Page 56 Ms. Gerhardt: The assessment district is now mature and so there’s no more space to buy into. Board Member Gooyer: Then what? Basically, they have to come up with something on their own then? Ms. Gerhardt: Any additional parking would need to be provided. Board Member Gooyer: My biggest concern with this is that if we’re trying to cram – I don’t know exactly but let’s say four parking spaces into six, I think the reality of it is you put those machines, you’re going to lose all four of those parking spaces and people aren’t even going to bother. I think we are going to lose in the long run by putting those machines in. I’m not a big fan of those things, to begin with, but I think especially – it’s one thing that if you go to work in the morning and you park it there for 8 hours; that’s one thing. If you’re going to swing in for an hours’ worth of –what? No. Ms. Gerhardt: Sorry, if may. The lifts are meant to be for the office employees and not for restaurant patrons. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, well, fine. Ms. Gerhardt: There has been some… Board Member Gooyer: To me… Huh? Board Member Baltay: Can I chime in for a second? Board Member Gooyer: Sure, go ahead. Board Member Baltay: I think Robert’s right on that those puzzler lifts aren’t going to work but what struck me is that I am just looking for a solution because we want to get these guys going and we want this restaurant. The facility right now has, I think 13 very good surface parking spaces that are open to the alley in the back. The restaurant is open mostly at night. Why not ask the applicant to assign that – those parking spaces are used for the restaurant in the evenings. That will make a real difference on the parking load and that’s really what the problem is. Then if we need to get the count right to meet the detailed code, let’s put the puzzler lifts down in the basement so we met the law but let’s ask the applicant to give the restaurant dedicated parking in that surface parking lot, which I think will actually be used. Every time I am going to Cal. Avenue for dinner there, it’s always a hassle to look for parking. If the restaurant had a parking spot right behind it, that would be a win and I don’t think it’s going to affect the building in a negative way because that’s used mostly during the day for office purposes. It seems to me that might be a way to approach it. Thank you. Mr. Lait: You know, I don’t mean to interrupt the Board deliberation but there are a couple things that I just wanted to lay out. There is a number problem that we need to solve and the mechanical lifts solve that problem. There’s a recent testament which I was talking to the Chair about – gosh, was it only yesterday? About a – presenting that ordinance to the ARB so that you know what the City Council has recently adopted with respect to mechanical lifts. We have a new code provision that explicitly lays out the authority to place mechanical lifts in buildings for certain types of land uses and offices are one of them. Restaurants, however, are not listed as one of the uses. This is a mixed-use development with office and now restaurant proposed and so this mechanical lift solution solves the number problem that we’ve – that we’re trying to address. I think and Graham mentioned this, I mean the Planning Commission spent a couple of hours on this very issue and you’re going to spend your time and you’re going to deliberate on this as well. The – it – ultimately, I think it comes down to a question of what floor area calculations do you find to be acceptable. That’s one part of the equation because the outdoor dining is triggering a demand for increased parking and part of your review is helping to make sure that it complies with code. Graham had presented what – in this At Places attachment, the conditions that were – had been modified over time to reflect – now this reflects the Planning and Transportation Commission conditions and reflects their sort of take on the floor area analysis, which I think is in line with Board City of Palo Alto Page 57 Member Baltay’s conversation. If you’re satisfied with that floor area analysis, I think that is a big part of the question that is out there. Additionally, there are tables and chairs, you know and railings and planters and things like this that are going to be on the sidewalk, which is also subject to your review if you have any comments or questions about that. That, I think, is the essences of what we are looking at. Those two areas. If the interest is moving the project forward in a manner that complies with code and all the rules, I think we have that path here, laid out in this At Places memo and unless you have a different perspective about the floor area calculations or some of the conclusions that were made, that’s a discussion point that I think we would benefit from having. Board Member Gooyer: I agree with Peter completely. Chair Lew: O, Wynne. Board Member Furth: I think I have some points of agreement with Peter but not many. When I – I sympathize with the appellant, I sympathize with the applicant, and I sympathize – I absolutely agree with Peter that people arrive here already unglued because of our traffic and parking problems. So, you don’t walk into a peaceable setting, you walk into hijita and sometimes this leads to elections, changing zoning again. I also keep thinking that surely AI is advanced enough so that we can teach some machine to interpret out code at least in the first round but I need to think about this a little bit historically and I need to ask you about consequences. Do we now believe that we let this building be built bigger than we should have? Ms. Gerhardt: We do in years past had not been counting storage areas in parking areas. That was an interpretation at the time. We now have a better understanding and now we do count those areas. Board Member Furth: I would take that as a yes and how many square feet is it? Mr. Owen: It’s in the Staff report (inaudible)… (crosstalk) Board Member Furth: I understand but I have heard a lot of numbers this morning. Mr. Owen: It’s about 300-square feet. Board Member Furth: That’s what I thought. Ok. Mr. Lait: Just on that point, that’s the chain linked cornered off areas in the subterranean garage and one… Board Member Furth: I understand. Those of us who remember the Masonic Temple hearings will remember those wonderful examples about how excluded square footage turns into storage because… Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, I just want to be clear. It was approved as storage and it was intended to be storage. It was authorized as storage and… Board Member Furth: I understand but we misinterpreted our code and generally as Staff, we aren’t allowed to expand the scope of what the code otherwise approves. I mean it was an official misinterpretation but we have now changed it, is that right? Mr. Lait: I would say that… Board Member Furth: Am I being harsh here? Mr. Lait: Well, I think that – today, we hear from the Council – the last direction we got from the Council on this was that we really should be looking at the plain reading of the code and so when you apply the plain reading of the code, today how we read the code may not be the same of how we read it 3-years City of Palo Alto Page 58 ago. The solution to the problem is to remove the chain link fence, which is the condition that was also imposed. Board Member Furth: Got it so I also disagree with the appellant that gross floor area is gross floor area; it isn’t. It’s a proxy for a couple different things and one of them is parking requirements, one of them is a proxy for intensity of use and that’s why we use if for parking requirements and the other one is a proxy for mass and that seems to be irrelevant here. They have the building and I absolutely agree that they don’t need to – they have a – I am assuming they operated in good faith when the built the building. They have a vested right to keep that building because they have properly issued building permits and they spent money so they’ve got a vested right to the building as it is. They don’t have a vested right to expand its use in terms of intensity of use, meaning the restaurant use or moving on to the – what we are generally calling the sidewalk. I have a second question which is, is this outdoor seating area on private property or in the public right-of-way or both? Mr. Owen: It’s both. Board Member Furth: Ok. Mr. Lait: The seating is on private property. The railing extends into the public right- of-way so the seating proper is on private property. Board Member Furth: When we calculate gross floor area, we will include anything under the canopy that is not one, open to the public and two, not used for sale services or related uses. It has to be both things, right? Ms. Gerhardt: Covered area for sales and service are counted towards FAR. Board Member Furth: So, if I’m the hardware store and I put out all those barbecues under an overhang, that is FAR, right? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Board Member Furth: Even though I can walk in from the sidewalk. Got it and that’s what it says in the code. It’s not what it says in the code? I was just reading it. Board Member Baltay: The code says that if it’s not generally accessible to the public as well. Board Member Furth: It says it's counted unless – it is counted if it is – I’m sorry, it’s excluded, right? Board Member Baltay: Right. Board Member Furth: If it is accessible to the general public and not devoted to sales or service so either one of those conditions makes it not excluded, i.e. included, is that right? Mr. Lait: There are two provisions of the code so thank you for highlighting the provision of the code, that frustrates us to no end. There are two parts to this definition, one part, 65A, talks about what does count as gross floor area and that says open or roofed porches, arcades, plazas, balconies, etc. etc. – I’m sorry. I read the wrong one. Permanently roofed but either partial enclosed or unenclosed building features used for sale, service, display, storage or similar uses. So, that’s the one that we’re looking at and we’re saying that yes, this does count for this strip of the area and it does count. Area that is excluded from floor area is in B Roman numeral two and that’s the one that Board Member Baltay was talking about, where you have these different areas and it’s not accessible to the public and – or when it is accessible to the public but not devoted toward sale, service and display, storage or similar uses. Board Member Furth: Those are not in contradiction, they are complimentary. (crosstalk) City of Palo Alto Page 59 Mr. Lait: (Inaudible) no, we do think that is an area that counts towards floor area. Board Member Furth: Right and I don’t think there’s any controversy in the way – I don’t think the code is ambiguous. You can never write a code that’s going to cover all situations. They always require interpretation but I don’t think we get to interpret them when they are not creating ambiguities. Board Member Baltay: But if these planters and table and chairs are temporary in nature. They are moved around, they are put there every day, then it’s no longer dedicated to this function. Board Member Furth: It’s used for, it doesn’t say dedicated to. Board Member Baltay: I know but by that logic, right now this space should be counted. Right now, it has the same physical covered balcony. Board Member Furth: It’s not devoted – they are not using it for sales or service, Peter. They are not displaying their wares out there. They are not servicing people food. I am missing something here and I am not sure this is a helpful discussion. Mr. Lait: No, no, listen. I just don’t want us to get involved in your deliberation is all but it’s the two points. It’s either excluded or included and I think we have the – this is a debate that we have also on Staff every once in a while. I don’t think either one of you is wrong, I just think you are highlighting different sections of the code. Let me restate that, I do think – I wouldn’t interpret it necessarily the way that Board Member Baltay has with respect to this specific issue. I do see this as floor area but I will tell you that on the Commission, the Planning Commission had a similar conversation about whether or not this could be considered floor area and contributed to parking for some of the reason that Board Member Baltay talked about with respect to having restaurants. This is a type of use that we want to see on California Avenue. Board Member Furth: I’m not arguing that this is a good idea. I am not saying that we should or shouldn’t do this, I am saying we are instructed by the code to do it so I believe it’s covered floor area. You have devised various methods for reducing the calculated FAR floor area so that 150-square feet of this space can be added to the buildings FAR and come within the permitted FAR, is that right? Board Member Gooyer: (Crosstalk) Well, is somebody going to answer it? Board Member Furth: When they convert the space under the overhang into a sales and service area, they add FAR to their building and you have figured out that by removing the enclosed storage areas, that you are still within the permitted FAR for the site so we don’t need to worry about that. We can be frustrated because we think it should be bigger. I mean I look at that space and think why wouldn’t you go all the way up and down but the answer is that this is as far as we’ve figured out how to go, right? So… Mr. Lait: The answer is no. They can – there’s still a – we believe – Staff believes that there is a delta of floor area that stills exists that is not at the maximum floor area for the site. Board Member Furth: So, they could have more than 150-square feet of outdoor space used for serving as a restaurant? Mr. Lait: If they wanted to. However, that has a parking implication. Board Member Baltay: But Jonathan, with all due respect… Board Member Furth: I am trying to separate these two out because of parking ultimately – sorry. City of Palo Alto Page 60 Mr. Lait: They are two different things… Board Member Furth: Yes. Mr. Lait: …but they are related. If you are going to have outdoor on private property and it’s going to meet this definition and it’s going to be used for sale and service, it counts as the floor is by our definition of gross floor area. Parking is based on floor area so they are related. If you are going to increase your floor are, you’re going to have to also count for the parking. Board Member Furth: I understand that but I am trying to figure out is what the applicant's options are and so you are telling me that – at this point, I have completely lost what they were asking for. Mr. Lait: I think it’s… Board Member Furth: How many square feet were they asking for? Mr. Lait: I think it’s – they are acting for 150-square feet of outdoor dining. What’s presented here is the applicant is looking for. The applicant is not disputing any of the Staff – I mean… Board Member Furth: I think I can get to where I am trying to go fairly quickly, which was to say the constraint at this point becomes how do they handle the parking requirements? It’s not that they are bumping up against their FAR limit as a sight and so… Mr. Lait: I would say whatever their interest is. I mean, parking may be one of those (inaudible) (crosstalk. Board Member Furth: I understand but I’m talking about what we can say yes too. I’d like to say yes to more square footage than this. I mean, if it was up to me, I would be saying that they are entitled to whatever the max was under their FAR provided that they provided parking to code but that’s not what they asked for. The parking alternatives that – we can’t buy our way out of a parking problem on this site. We have a code section now that says we can authorize puzzle parking for office uses. You believe as Staff, that it would be effective on this site? Ok, thank you. Mr. Lait: Not only effective but also permitted by code. Board Member Furth: Even better. No, I knew it was permitted by code but I wanted to know if it was effective too. Would it be possible – this is a question that you don’t need to answer unless it’s easy to answer. Is this the limit of parking expansion on site; basically, one of these numbers of spaces? Mr. Lait: Is this the most they can do? No. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you, Wynne. Board Member Furth: Using the term loosely. Chair Lew: Yes, so, ok. I don’t have a lot to add to this. I would say that I think the At Places memo that the Staff provided, I just skimmed it very quickly and I don’t have any issue with it. Peter, you mentioned that you disagree with code definition of roofed outdoor floor area and I just wanted to highlight that there are – there have been projects like on University Avenue, there’s a – what is it, Lemonade? So, before Lemonade, there was – it was the Lobby (inaudible) bakery so they a proposal to cover the – most of the plaza with a trellis for outdoor seating. I think the Staff said that would count towards floor area and so that went away and then they did umbrellas instead and the temporary umbrellas didn’t count as floor area but they are big – I would that I just want to caution you that there is the significant City of Palo Alto Page 61 implication for that kind of change. I mean there is one thing that if you just see a row of tables in front of a building but there are other instances where I think the City would want to be more careful about it. I mean large courtyard – we’ve had large – we do have large outdoor restaurants so it’s an important issue that I don’t think we should take – I don’t – I would say that we shouldn’t rush to judgment. I think we should look at the – if we think there’s a policy issue then maybe you should ask Staff do a larger analysis of it. I don’t want to be – it may make sense to make a judgment on this one case but I think there’s a – I think we should look at it more broadly if that’s – if you guys want to go that way. Ok, then I think my last question is for Staff. So, I understand that you have the memo and then the Staff report mentioned two options. Mr. Lait: Right and the Planning Commission offered a solution to that, which has been incorporated into that memo which is to remove the chain link fence. Chair Lew: Which is the is the first item, right? Remove the… Mr. Owen: Correct. Chair Lew: Ok, so we’re not doing two. Got it. Is that correcting? I am not really sure I understand this. That was that – we’re doing two, right? Is removing the storage but not the bike parking? Mr. Owen: I’m sorry, two. Chair Lew: It’s two and not one, ok. Ok, so that’s where I am but I am not – well, lets the Board deliberate because I think we’re at two-two, maybe? Board Member Baltay: Let me respond to what you said Alex, about the covered area. I think it’s quite right that when a restaurant builds a trellis or makes an enclosed outdoor dining area along the lines of what we at the Indian restaurant off of University. That definitely counts towards FAR and that’s what they are talking about. What I am envisioning what these guys are asking for is putting some tables on the sidewalk and to me, that’s where I think we’re just getting our head in the sand. I mean, when a restaurant (inaudible) puts a table on the sidewalk, that’s not adding FAR to the building. I don’t think that’s what the code is saying so I don’t want to debate it anymore and I don’t think it’s beneficial for the Staff (inaudible). Chair Lew: Right. I would say that in general, as I’ve been taught to design buildings, we want facades to be deep and have depth and shadow and character so this was a Ken Hayes building and so he did that and I do support that. I think the policies that the City has should encourage that instead of having a thing curtain wall right at the edge of the property line. I think that’s a bad – that’s the wrong way to go so I do want to – I think we are in agreement about that. I guess the issue is here is that there’s a cantilever or there’s an existing overhang so then that’s considered roof. That’s like… Board Member Baltay: Let me address then that Jonathan mentioned earlier, that I think Wynne asked you, the building need – something about the way the FAR is counted now, the building is suddenly less than the maximum amount required. When we approved the ARB thing back 5-years ago, it was at 27,00-square feet, the FAR of the building. That was clearly documented. There’s nobody debating that. How can right now the building be then at 26,000 something? I mean, how can you guys be supporting that? That’s my fundamental questions are what are we using to base – if the basement storage was never included in the FAR, how is it all of sudden required to remove it in order to bring it into compliance? If it was already at the maximum, how can you be – it doesn’t make sense. Mr. Owen: The biggest change in FAR between the ARB set from 2013 and what we have right here are the areas on the first floor—the ground floor that is the required axis from the garage to exit the building. With the ARB set from 2013, those areas were included erroneously, as we see it, in the gross floor area of the building. As they have no function unrelated to exiting the parking garage, we consider them accessory to the parking and there for exempted. City of Palo Alto Page 62 Board Member Baltay: Aw, so you guys are changing the FAR was calculated on the original building. Reducing that with things like stairs – exiting stairs. Chair Lew: Could you point on the plan where it is? I presumably believe it’s near the alley. Ms. Gerhardt: There are the stairs exiting the basement garage and so from the basement level to the street level, there is required access for the basement garage and so you’ll see the gray coloring on those stairways. Ok. I got it. Mr. Lait: So, we’ve done both. We’ve counted areas we shouldn’t count and we didn’t count areas that we should have counted and so that’s how get (inaudible) Board Member Baltay: Thank you for being clear. Ok, so then we are recounting the building and you guys generally believe that it’s actually a little bit smaller than that what was originally approved. Ok, so look, it’s not for us… Mr. Owen: With this and also with removing those storage areas in the basement or removing the chain link fencing, yes. Board Member Furth: So, what did that do the parking calculations? Did you reduce what –otherwise, reduced the number of additional parking spaces that you would have required? Mr. Owen: It washed out. It stayed at two additional space required that they are providing with puzzlers. Board Member Baltay: I just find it unfair that we’re asking them to remove these – these storage areas that we are talking about where carefully designed and substantially built. They are detailed out on the original construction drawings and it’s not trivial to remove them and I think it makes – there are not benefit to the public interest taking them out and we’re asking them to do that just to make the number match because you want to recount the whole building. I’m much more comfortable just leaving it as it is. Mr. Lait: I don’t want to put words into the Board but it seems like the Board is heading towards yes on the project. That there isn’t a – the issue – there may be some question about the floor area and some commentary about that but it seems like the project is moving toward an approval. I would say that the Planning Commission last night had a discussion about that very issue and the question was what’s the – what is the benefit to the community? How do we – what’s the ad of removing these spaces or not and they decided, late in their meeting, that this is just the cleanest way to make it clear that you’re not allowed to have that storage area? I would say that when we issue a building permit and as architects, you know this, it doesn’t mean that you necessarily get that. We can find an error that we’ve made and require that it be brought into conformance with the code and that’s kind of the situation that we are finding ourselves here. There’s – well I won’t be under the commentary about that. Board Member Gooyer: I guess the part that I have a problem with is that as we were talking about if it represented a bulk or mass or anything like that, labeling it something seems stupid to me. I mean to make a big issue out and to have them take the chain link fence down because the reality is that you can’t put a car back there. So, you can’t use it for anything else other than a big empty hole so what are they going to do, they are going to pile crap there again and make it a storage area without a chain link fence in front of it. Mr. Lait: Ok, so and… Board Member Gooyer: What? We’re going to go down and check once a month that they are not doing that? City of Palo Alto Page 63 Mr. Lait: No, we’re not going to go check once a month but we will – we do have to an inspection and that’s one of the conditions that we have and … Board Member Gooyer: Ok, I’m being a bit facetious. I’m just saying that to me it doesn’t make any sense to tear something down when we are not benefiting really anything, other than making the numbers of the calculations count. Mr. Lait: Yes, I hear you and you have an applicant and a property own who want a resolution to this matter and they have agreed to this condition. The Planning Commission… Board Member Gooyer: Just because they’ve agreed to it, I still think it’s a stupid condition. I mean… Mr. Lait: That’s fine. Board Member Gooyer: … the reality of it is, I think what it all boils down to and after hearing this for an hour is that they want to use something – they started out with retail, which it went through originally. Now they want to put a restaurant in which means more parking. If they have come up with a solution by using this – the mechanical parking system, covers that additional parking then I think it’s a done deal. Mr. Lait: Again, I just want to be clear about this. The plan that is before you are what the applicant is requesting. They understand that as a part of that approval, they have to remove the chain link fence. That is an acceptable condition to the applicant. It’s – if you’re not getting into the discussion of the hearings requesters comments – if you’re not buying the argument about the hearing requesters statements about the floor area and all these kinds of – if you are past that, you are right. It is a done deal and I think it’s done if you are ready to move forward with a motion. Board Member Baltay: Let’s focus on the parking. Where are the puzzler lifts proposed to be located? On the upper floor or in the basement? Mr. Owen: They are currently proposed at the upper floor. It provides vertical clearance that's needed for the system. Board Member Baltay: Is it possibly to put the puzzler lifts in the basement level? Male: (Inaudible) Board Member Baltay: Ok, well look, I think we should just push this along. It’s clearly – we need to approve it. If we have to be in sync with everybody else then, as much as I don’t think I like the way we’ve don’t it, we should just put this forward. What is the format we need to do? Chair Lew: The Staff at Places memo is the Staff recommendation. I just misplaced it. Is this the number four? Board Member Baltay: Jonathan, what would you –what do you think – what would you recommend that we move to approve, please? Mr. Lait: Right so I think it’s the Staff recommendation as modified by the At Places memo. MOTION Board Member Furth: So, moved. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. City of Palo Alto Page 64 Board Member Furth: Can we have discussion briefly? Chair Lew: Sure, well yes. So, we have a motion and a second and… Board Member Furth: If I could speak to my motion? Chair Lew: Yes. Board Member Furth: That is incorporating, of course, these modified conditions. I don’t disrespect what Mr. Levinsky did. When I came here, the City building Staff that the vigorous encouragement of architects and applicants was rounding down on doing calculating FARs from building plans. You could add 5 ½ -inches in every dimension of your building and – cause why not? The neighbors came unglued and I thought the neighbors were obsessive but I also thought that you shouldn’t be rounding up from plans and all laws become – all laws of this kind become ridiculous at some point. They all require interpretation. I mean really what I hear my colleagues saying is the FAR ought to be a little bigger and the rules are silly. We have these exclusions because people wanted bigger buildings. Bigger buildings that are more than 1 to 1 FAR. That are more than two and they are more than whatever they say because a lot of those spaces is excluded and those exclusions have been fought for one by one by one by applicants. The public says, wait a minute. You told me we were going to have 2.0 and it’s more like 2.9, what is this and we say oh, it’s excluded space. These are not unreasonable things to look at but I do not share Mr. Levinsky’s analysis of how these things are calculated. I also disagree with the notion that FAR – sorry. Floor area is floor area. It’s not more than income is income for tax code purposes. It all depends on what you are looking at. I think that what is seriously happening here is that this is an intensification of use. I look forward to it happening. That is a sad and dark space at present and as Mr. Levinsky says, we’re not opposed to this being a restaurant or it having outdoor spaces. I admit it defies reason when you think ok, why can I put thirty spaces on the public sidewalk and not a problem but somebody parks right – anyway, I’m not trying to defend it but I think this is what our code permits. I don’t think it’s within our rights to modify it as it goes so I am moving the Staff recommendation as modified because I think it’s a good one. Chair Lew: Are we ready to vote? All in favor? Opposed? None so that is 5-0 with – 4-0, yes, with Board Member Kim absent. Just a clarification from Staff, this is a – we treated this like an appeal but this is a Director’s decision. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH VICE CHAIR KIM ABSENT. Mr. Lait: Right so what we are doing is this item is going to go to the City Council on June 12th on the consent calendar. The CUP necessary needs to go to the City Council on consent and the Director has the authority to differ a decision of the ARB for three different criteria and this meets on of the criteria and so the whole packet is just going to go to the City Council on June 12th on consent. The Council may choose to – if they elect, three members of the Council can pull it up and schedule it for a hearing. Otherwise, if they don’t, it gets approved on consent. Chair Lew: Great, thank you for that clarification. Ok, we will see everybody on the 12th. 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312]: Request for Architectural Review for a New Three Story Mixed Use Project With 275 Square Feet of Commercial Space and Three Residential Units (4,435 Square Feet). The Applicant also seeks a Variance to the Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial Floor Area Ratio and Design Enhancement Exception to Reduce the Required Driveway Width From 20-feet to 16 Feet and six-Inches. Environmental Assessment: Pending Further Review. Zoning District: CS. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at APetersen@m-group.us City of Palo Alto Page 65 Chair Lew: Item number five a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter for 3265 El Camino Real. Request for architectural review for a new three-story mixed use project with 275-square feet of commercial space and three residential units of 4,435- square feet. The applicant also seeks a variance to the minimum mixed-use ground floor commercial floor area ratio and a Design Enhancement Exception to reduce the required driveway width from 20-feet to 16 Feet and six-inches. Environmental assessment is pending further review and the zone district is CS. We have Adam Petersen our project planner. Welcome, Adam. Mr. Adam Petersen, Project Planner: Alright, good afternoon Chair Lew, members of the Architectural Review Board. I am Adam Petersen from the Planning and Community Environment Department. I am here to present the project at 3265 El Camino Real. This was a project that was heard by the ARB as more of a sort of informational item in December of 2016. The ARB provided comments and the applicant went back to the drawing board and made some changes to the plans. Mainly they removed the ground floor and sort of second-floor office space that was fronting El Camino Real. They replaced that with a ground floor commercial space at 275-square feet and then some mass to the front of the building and still have three residential units but sort of moved the massing around a little bit. We are here today for the ARB to review the proposed project, provide comments and continue the item to a date uncertain. As indicated, the project is located on El Camino Real; it’s right here. There is a two-story hotel, three-story mixed-use building and then a one-story restaurant that sort of flanks the site. Really quickly I am going to dive through the or just sort of skim through the ARB’s comments or key comments from that December 2016 hearing. Number one the ARB was concerned about the narrow driveway when the applicant was proposing a 16-foot 6-inch driveway. The transportation division reviewed this and they are supportive of that reduced driveway width with the Design Enhancement Exception. The trash location was moved to the back of the building and the applicant proposed to roll out service for that. The applicant has reduced the mass of the building by approximately 2,600-square feet and really one of the main – one of the ARB’s main comments was that the tree and the parking were really driving the design of the building. Staff worked with the City arborist to evaluate the tree and also the City code. The City code says that you can pull out the tree if it’s dead, dangerous and a nuisance or if twenty-five percent of the buildable area of the site is being taken up by the tree. Unfortunately, in this case, the tree is neither dead, dangerous or a nuisance and doesn’t take up twenty-five percent of the site so the site is stuck with this tree. The applicant needed to come up with a design that respected the tree and also met the City’s requirements. What the applicant did has they basically changed the office space to the ground floor to a commercial space, which thereby reduced the parking. The applicant does have two stacked parking stalls for the project that’s consistent with the parking requirements. Moving on, there were comments regarding the architecture and the design. The applicant has updated the architecture to include hardy lap siding, strong aluminum reveals, metal railings and stucco stone veneer and this is applied consistently throughout the project. The ARB was also concerned about unfriendly pedestrian – an unfriend pedestrian entrance. There are two pedestrian entrances to the project and located immediately behind the commercial use is sort of a lobby for the project. Really quickly a walk through the floor plan. Again, we have the pedestrian entrance at the front on El Camino Real. This is the commercial space. We have a pedestrian entrance on either side which leads to a lobby here. Above this -- above each level are residential units. The renderings will sort of illustrates what those look like. We have one acceptable space, which technically meets the parking requirements for the City and that is for the commercial use. There are two stacked parking here for four parking and then finally two pad parking places in the back. The design – the trees is preserved in the back of the site with a staircase that wraps down from an upper-level sort of balcony area down to an open space in the back. Really quick, I just want to walk you through the renderings for the site. Again, this is the entrance with the garage, commercial space, and then two pedestrian entrances that flank either side of the commercial space. You can see that the applicant has reduced the mass along this sort of reading portion of the building. There is more sort of these independent residential units towards the back and it moves the mass up front too. Moving along, this is the front along El Camino Real and the rear of the building. This is again, another rendering of the rear of the building that shows that the design does respect the tree. Again, just to reiterate, this project requires architectural review. There is a Design Enhancement Exception, which the Transportation Staff has been supportive of. The variances used to respect the tree and provide adequate parking on this site by reducing the ground floor commercial and office requirement. Again, the motion City of Palo Alto Page 66 before the ARB is to review the proposed project, provide comments and continue the application to a date uncertain. Thank you and I am available for any comments that the ARB may have. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Adam, and so now is the time for the applicant presentation and you have 10-minutes. Mr. Bob Iwersen: Thank you for a member of the Architectural Review Board. I am impressed with your stamina today. I am tired just watching. Much of what I would like to reiterate is included in the Staff report so I would like to try and make this brief. Let me see if I can go forward here. Chair Lew: Could you – I am sorry to interrupt. Just state your name for the (inaudible) (crosstalk) Mr. Iwersen: Oh, I’m Bob Iwersen with Hunt Hale Jones Architects. When we last met, our proposal was clumsily attempting to fit too much program into a highly constrained site. Planning and the design team then met and with the goal to create a building that would comfortably fit the site, respect context, provide livability, meet zoning and maintain the heritage oak. Your previous comments guided this and they were that the project is too tall and massive. Especially along the tall wall along the west property line, which is going to be highly visible for the foreseeable future. Too dense and urban, lacking residential and livability feel, and no relationship to the open space and most challenging is that we need to simultaneously meet the desires of the zoning density and strong street façade, future context and the present context. We have tried to address these items and make all of the aspects of the project knit together to create a comfortable holistic project. The workspace needed proper street frontage. The residences need clear and pleasant interiors with strong connections to the private and common open spaces. Parking needed reasonable proximity to all these uses and circulation needed to tie all this together in a clear understandable form. At the same, we tried to create fenestration and materials and detailing to reflect the variety of uses while maintaining a coherent project. For instance, we needed to simultaneously create a strong, durable street façade of at least 25-feet in height while providing a softer residential life in the rear or simple stealing of elements from presidents but rather all decisions are meant to support the entire concept. For example, the recesses of the El Camino façade are further protected by balconies and awning and railings and appropriately located louver system. In contrast, while using the same railings and window system, the rear generously opens towards our more substantial open space than we had before. The community open spaces are increased significantly. Circulation through the project or through the site is intended to strengthen the massing and create a comfortable way through the project. An identifiable residential entrance provides a short path to the stair elevator system. From here, a flowing path meanders to unit entrances and various open spaces and culminates in a circular stair to the common open space in respecting the oak tree and its form. The massing result is intended to provide a highly residential feel at the rear with a strong front and additionally allows for great access to light and air for the residents. The fenestration and materials and detailing are going to be contemporary in nature but hopefully intricate enough to create depth and richness to the building. As previously mentioned, we are not simply borrowing president but we are applying and adjusting these examples to support the circumstances of the site. Layer of the front façade intends to create depth to this elevation while providing privacy where needed. The railing will incorporate a design that provides – that promotes privacy but allows for glimmers of light and depth. The stone will be sleek and tight but a varied coursing and dimension. The siding will be a varied exposure and panelized, disguising the building from typical single-family topologies while recognizing residential living. Finally, we intended to create passive sustainable features within the design and provide some more active features what would appeal to the tech. savvy residents. Opportunity for cross and stacked ventilation at the units created by the massing. Proper protection at the south and west windows but open to the east and north will hopefully enhance livability. Operable mechanical shutter is provided and space for solar systems will be available for future use. Once again, thank you very much and I am willing to answer any questions. I think the Staff report did an excellent job so I’m more than willing to react to any commentary. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. I don’t have any speaker cards for this particular item so I will bring it back to the Board for the question. City of Palo Alto Page 67 Board Member Baltay: Question, do we have any material samples? Mr. Iwersen: Not at this point, no. Board Member Baltay: I mean any more detailed specification on what these finishes will be? Mr. Iwersen: Just the images that I have included in the drawings. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Iwersen: I can go into more enhanced images I think, which I have here. Chair Lew: Any other questions? No. Board Member Furth: I have one question which is how the breezeway works? Are those – each of them an access way to a separate unit or (inaudible)(crosstalk) Mr. Iwersen: One – the breezeway is an access to only one unit. Each unit has its own, basically private entrance and so the breezeway itself accesses only one unit. The other two are accessed on the ground floor of the podium deck. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: Yes, Wynne, why don’t you start then on Board Member comments. Board Member Furth: Oh, I think it’s much improved. No further comment from me. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Well, it’s definitely a big improvement over what we saw the first go around. I’m still a little -- I mean this I being called a mixed-use but we’re talking about the equivalent of a one car garage for a commercial area and the rest of it is all residential. I am having a hard time classifying this as mixed use. I don’t have that big of a problem with the 16-feet but the only thing is, when you are coming down El Camino at the rate of flow that traffic is going, you have to usually stop fairly quickly and make a tight turn so the wider the better. I would be a whole lot happier with 20-feet. I mean it’s definitely, like I said, a big improvement over what it was. It’s just that to me, it’s still asking for a whole lot of variations and it just seems like it’s inappropriate to put three full-blown housing units right in the middle of a commercial district where it is. That’s all I have at the moment. Mr. Iwersen: Can I respond or not? Can I respond at this point or not? No? Ok. Chair Lew: Well, I think we’ll get there. I think we’re going to get there in a minute. I might have a question for you regarding that. Peter? Board Member Baltay: I share my previous Board Member’s comments. I think it’s a much-improved design. It fits the site much better. Just a couple of things on the floor plan that I am trying to puzzle out because the more I look at it, the more I see things that I just want more information I guess. As I pull in the parking space, the last two spots there, how do I back the vehicle up and get back out again without… Mr. Iwersen: That is that little deck that is provided out in the back is also intended as backup space. Board Member Baltay: So, that’s underneath the drip line of the tree. So, you’re sort of pulling outside the building through that big opening at the back underneath the tree and then coming forward. That doesn’t seem to work very well. If you’re supposed to stay away from the tree, then you can’t have cars City of Palo Alto Page 68 driving underneath it. I am sure there is a way to lay it all out correctly but it just seems odd to have such a large garage opening onto this public outdoor space. If it really is going to be this beautiful outdoor garden that you so nicely described, then I am not sure I want to see a 20-foot opening into a parking garage from that and I would want to have car occasionally backing up where my child is playing, for example. You’d really want more of a barrier. What I am left thinking is I wish you could just sink that parking area down even just half a story or something to get more separation. I know you are close to the tree but you’re already doing it for the mechanical lifts anyway. If you could just get it more separated, I think it would work better as a whole. Then I was just glancing through the floor plans for the building and I noticed you have a fairly interesting window on the El Camino elevation on the right. It’s a very tall building window and I was sort of wondering what is going on? It turns out you have a stair wrapping… Mr. Iwersen: It’s with the stair system, yeah. Board Member Baltay: So, the stairs wrap sort of between the kitchen counter and the window going up like that and it’s certainly innovative and genius but I wonder if it’s really all that practical. Mr. Iwersen: Well, I think it’s to allow light into that unit and eventually, what I think I would like to do is poke a little hole and put an operable window in there to allow for some more ventilation up through the stair. I think it’s just a way of allowing light into the unit without overheating the unit. Board Member Baltay: As I – let me finish if I could. As I finish -- as I dive into the floor plan more, I realize that it’s a dramatic stair and what it’s really going up to is just sort of a small room up on the third floor with no – it’s just a room up there without any sort of any larger space. There’s no bathroom and it’s not connected to anything. I hope I am miss reading it but if I am not, it doesn’t make sense. Chair Lew: There’s something –no, it’s the whole – there are three bedrooms. Mr. Iwersen: It’s a three bedroom, yeah. It goes up to three bedrooms. Board Member Baltay: Is there a doorway through there, is that what I am missing? Board Member Furth: Yes. Board Member Baltay: Oh, I am sorry. Chair Lew: They are kind of drawn slightly… Board Member Baltay: Oh, so you go up to that third level and then I can carry into – oh, I’ sorry. I didn’t – my mistake. Mr. Iwersen: That’s just a play area at the top of the stairs. Board Member Baltay: Now that makes perfect sense then. So, it’s not really for us to question the details of your layout and stuff but I don’t think that it gives you the opportunity to have a nice vertical element on El Camino, which I applaud so more power to you. Then the last one just gets to that I was looking at one of the renderings of the back of the building and it just caught my eye as being very tall and narrow. Mr. Iwersen: The rendering is actually inaccurate on that. If you look at the actual elevation, it’s a split window system that – it’s a taller room in that case. It’s a living room that we punched up and… Board Member Baltay: So again, if you could let me finish, please. On Sheet A-4.2, the rear elevation, when I look at that it kind of scares me. It’s just really ill proportion and I look at the elevation and I think that’s got some promise to it. City of Palo Alto Page 69 Board Member Gooyer: You’re saying the A-2.1 is actually the way that it will be? Mr. Iwersen: Let me check on that. I’m not sure if I’ve… I’m trying to find that sheet. Let me – darn it. I’ll have to take a look and see. I don’t know if I have that particular sheet. Board Member Baltay: Well, what I am left – I guess what I am trying to comment on so that my fellow Board Members can hear is that the more that I look at it, the more I see small questions that aren’t starting to add up to – my first reaction to this whole thing was why aren’t we approving this right now? Then the more I look at it, the more I see little things that just don’t jive so I look at that rendering and it scares me. I look at the elevation and maybe it’s good. I ask you for some idea about what the materials are and I get nothing so we’re not trying to get it approved right away so that’s fine. I guess I am saying that I’m still… Mr. Iwersen: I think our intent was to come here and try and get a – rather than go down the road we did last, with the full-blown presentation and get sent back to the drawing board. We wanted to see if we were on the right track and that’s kind of where we are going. Board Member Baltay: Fair enough. Chair Lew: This is the third scheme that they’ve presented so there was a scheme before this. Board Member Baltay: So, then I – let me just say that I think you are on the right track. I think the building has great potential and is certainly approvable. Mr. Iwersen: By the way, 2.1 is the correct – the rendering just didn’t pick up on it. I’m trying to – we don’t have the in-house rendering and trying to get them to match it up has a bit of a – more of a struggle than we anticipated. Board Member Baltay: I think I will be able to support this at some point but right now there are still a few questions. The biggest one has to do with the parking and its relationship to the backyard and it it’s not possible to get a little more separation psychologically. Ok, thank you. Mr. Iwersen: Yes? Board Member Furth: Hi, so looking at A-4.2, which is the renderings. So, what is happening to the left of the descending staircase? Mr. Iwersen: We have a preliminary landscape plan for that and that is more just a planting wall, I believe. If you go to sheet L-1.1, that would be a more accurate description. There is a planting area adjacent to a – there is a little bit of height change down at that point. It descends in the rear so that’s a little bit of a ramp that goes down from that deck on down. Board Member Furth: I’m sorry. I’m having, even more, trouble reading it than that. I am exposing all kinds of ignorance. So, I see that there’s a deck and there’s a staircase coming down from it. Mr. Iwersen: The staircase is above. Board Member Furth: The staircase is coming down, right? Mr. Iwersen: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Board Member Furth: To the left of that, what am I seeing behind the deck? Mr. Iwersen: Well, that’s why I was trying to push you towards L-1.1. City of Palo Alto Page 70 Board Member Furth: Right. Mr. Iwersen: That is a ramp down from the deck. It’s a wooden boardwalk in a way. Board Member Furth: Right and behind the boardwalk? Mr. Iwersen: Probably about a foot and a half. Board Member Furth: What looks like a car gleaming… Chair Lew: It’s a doorway. Board Member Furth: There’s a big –what looks like a garage door with a car in it. Chair Lew: It’s a garage doorway so that the car can back out over the wood deck. Board Member Furth: Is that what we are talking about? This is the backup space? (Crosstalk) Got it. Didn’t realize that deck was at ground level. Thank you. Chair Lew: Let's go back to the – I think you had – Robert, you had a comment about the mixed-use, right? The lack of – the small level of office space. I just wanted to go back to that so our zoning requires a certain amount on the ground floor and … Board Member Gooyer: What is that number, by the way? Chair Lew: Ten – fifteen percent. Mr. Petersen: Yeah, fifteen percent is the required amount. Board Member Gooyer: Of the entire project? Mr. Petersen: Of the site area. Board Member Gooyer: Oh, the site area, ok. Chair Lew: That’s a lot of floor area. Mr. Iwersen: It comes out to 1,124-square feet and what – as a result of – by putting that much on the ground floor, it pushes everything back into the tree. That’s where the problem comes in and so that is how we worked with planning to try and establish some sort of compromise between the hardship for the tree and the requirement – the fairly large requirement for ground floor space of the commercial. Chair Lew: Right and we would not normally allow an all residential project in zoning. Mr. Iwersen: Yes. Chair Lew: That’s how our code reads and yes? Mr. Iwersen: Can I just present this? This is a little exhibit about small shops and such but (inaudible) Chair Lew: Can you use the microphone, please? Mr. Iwersen: They are all in one location, however, if you were too… Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) City of Palo Alto Page 71 Mr. Iwersen: Well, if you could extrapolate that… (inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) in the middle of nowhere. Mr. Iwersen: … over to a – you know, there are other examples of one small shops (inaudible). Board Member Gooyer: So, how far are you off? Chair Lew: Way off. Mr. Iwersen: Way off, yeah. Chair Lew: 1,000-square feet? Mr. Iwersen: 1,000-square feet. Board Member Gooyer: Oh, ok. Board Member Baltay: Do we have the option of just not requiring commercial? Is that within our purview? We can just reduce the amount but we can’t eliminate the requirement? Ms. Gerhardt: The project is asking for a variance from that development standard. Board Member Baltay: Can we make the variance a complete elimination of that standard? Board Member Gooyer: No, because I don’t think then you can classify it as a – you could probably vary how much it is but this way, it would still be a commercial or a mixed use. Board Member Baltay: So, we are right back where we were an hour ago. This is a non-useful building with no parking. I mean non-useful commercial space and there is not parking. The only parking space is the handicap spot. Mr. Iwersen: I would argue that that space is useful. (crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: We do have the option to approve a variance for it? Board Member Gooyer: You mean by eliminating (inaudible). Board Member Baltay: Just illuminate it. Call it what it is. Ms. Gerhardt: There is the – as Alex stated, there is a prohibition on full residential project so we would have to explore that further and we can bring that back to you. Chair Lew: That was a Council level discussion so it wasn’t – I don’t think – my recollection was that discussion was more for – was more based on – after Arbor Real and not necessarily for a very, very small site. Board Member Baltay: They just start this (inaudible). Mr. Iwersen: I would still argue that while it’s small, I think it’s still a useful spot. I think that can – there will be a potential for a tenant to come in there. Board Member Gooyer: But the other thing is also, that there is no parking for it. Mr. Iwersen: No, there is. Yeah. They’ve got a spot. City of Palo Alto Page 72 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, one handicap or one accessible space that theoretically you can’t park unless you have a plaque. Board Member Baltay: Unless you are selling wheelchairs in this spot. Board Member Gooyer: I mean really, you don’t have a parking space for it. I mean yes, there is a physical space but you can’t use it. Chair Lew: Ok. Board Member Gooyer: I mean, I’m just trying to be realistic. Mr. Iwersen: Yeah, yeah. I’m not sure… Board Member Gooyer: If we are talking about a variance, that needs to be part of it that also – that – it goes more to the tune of just saying can you get rid of it altogether because that also eliminates the issues of the… Board Member Baltay: The tree gives you intense room for requesting a variance. It’s significantly difficult in developing this project. Chair Lew: Ok, so let’s just list stuff to deliberate on. We’re not making a decision on this today and let them see if there is a way on (inaudible). Board Member Gooyer: No, but I am not a big fan of variances. Never have been. Chair Lew: Well, it’s not our – it’s not the Board decision, right? Board Member Gooyer: Ok, but it is my decision to vote yes or no. Chair Lew: You can have an opinion. Yes, and you can have an opinion. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, fine. Chair Lew: Whether or not it meets the variance findings is the Director’s decision. Ok, Wynne, did you have something? Board Member Furth: Oh, if we are going down a list, my principle concern at this point is the safety – is modifying the backup on those two garage spaces for returning so that there’s a barrier between the backing up and the use of that outdoor space. Whether it’s a circular bench on the edge of the deck or whatever but so that… Mr. Iwersen: We could easily put that in there. Board Member Furth: … it’s safer. I would be curious as to – there’s not garage door there now, is that right? Mr. Iwersen: There is no garage there. Board Member Furth: I tend to think that it would be better with one. One of the things that might do is give me a sound signal when it goes up for example. Chair Lew: So… Board Member Furth: Yes? City of Palo Alto Page 73 Ms. Gerhardt: Where are you suggesting the garage door? Mr. Iwersen: On the rear. Board Member Furth: At the back on the rear two spaces and one of the things about having a garage door is that you can signalize it so that it beeps when it opens. (Inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: Well the neighbors are a restaurant and (inaudible) (crosstalk) Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) this site, Mr. Iwersen: Can I also address the – we’re keeping the existing curb cut on El Camino, which is wider than the 16-feet. It’s the garage door itself that is 16-feet 6-inches and we have a little bit more space than that as you pull up to the garage door by the return, just on the right side actually but not by much. I think we’re about 17-feet as you pull in underneath the building. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you for that. So, I have a couple of other comments. One went to the garage door in the back. I have seen that done in San Francisco where there is a garage door on the front and the back and at least in San Francisco it’s very (inaudible). Just for security because people will go up and over and all around to break into buildings in San Francisco. Having the back door is useful there but I don’t know it really makes much sense here but it’s been done. It’s – on the project that I have seen, it was – it does affect the backup space but it’s still done. I can support the DEE for the driveway width because you have a very small lot. The window that Peter was asking about, I just want to caution you that in our El Camino Design guidelines, it discourages louvers and screens on the windows… Mr. Iwersen: Oh, it does? Chair Lew: … and I think it was intended for much – like a large office – we have some large office building from the 60’s that have all – the entire window is covered with a screen. I think that was the intent and I am not sure that this one architectural feature that you have has to be – what do I want to say? That it couldn’t have a screen. I just wanted to caution you. (crosstalk) (Inaudible) Mr. Iwersen: Well, I was – yeah. We could go to a Cal. Wall system or something like that with at punched opening in it maybe or something along those lines. It’s more or less – it’s more to filter light through and protect from heat gain rather than… Chair Lew: I think what my main thing is though, is that because you are building up against the property line against a one-story restaurant. I want some sort of architectural feature or definition there and it’s tricky because it’s a fire condition. To me, making something attractive there at that corner is more important than the guidelines restriction on screening – solar screening. Generally, I can support the project and I think that’s all that I have or let me – I think I have one more comment. Oh, yes, I have one more comment. The residential entrance is off to the left and you have you have a wood slated gate. If there was a way of making that more prominent, I would be interesting in see if there were options because right now, you have very small commercial space with the bigger entrance and you have three units which, in Palo Alto, would be – should be very high end just given the square footage and the way the prices are now but are making them through what looks like a little smalls side gate. Anyway, if you have ideas, I would be interested in seeing them. Mr. Iwersen: Well, no, that’s a – that’s mostly what we are looking for is input on that level to see how we enhance certain aspects. Chair Lew: I think it doesn’t necessarily have to be big but I mean, in terms of quality and materials and whatnot, it could be very attractive. Anyway, I think that you are on the right track. I look forward to seeing this one come through. City of Palo Alto Page 74 Mr. Iwersen: Anything specific as far as the material and the skin that you – or the fenestration, besides the louvers aspect, that you would think would help this project when we go forward? Chair Lew: I would say that in the past if we – I was just looking at your front façade, the Board has often wanted to see a change in plan anytime there was a different material because otherwise, it’s just like a Zee flashing between them. Mr. Iwersen: Right now, if you saw the section, I have a larger stone element that gives a little water table effect at that point. Would you rather see something stronger, I guess is the case? Chair Lew: This is right above the garage entrance? Mr. Iwersen: Yeah, it’s above the garage. If you go to the wall sections. Chair Lew: Can I – yeah. Mr. Iwersen: It ties in with that awning over the residential. Chair Lew: Yep. Mr. Iwersen: It’s meant to tie in with those. Chair Lew: I guess it would be on really how – it’s the actual profile because the faux stones are -- I don’t know. They are pretty thin so I guess it depends on how it’s detailed and on the – I had I think a similar question as Peter about the siding. If it was hardy; like quarter inch thick Hardy panels versus – I don’t know, metal siding with a deep rib or … Mr. Iwersen: Hardy is coming out with this more premier version… Chair Lew: Yeah, I’ve seen that. Mr. Iwersen: … that is thicker. We could do that or we could switch over a metal siding with a great relief to it. Chair Lew: I don’t know – it seems to me that the hardy siding is the environmentally preferable material. I think when – we have buildings with metal sidings and then it really comes down to the details like all the corner details, where its lapped and the screws – you know, if the corners are mitered or whatnot so we have some projects that have really beautiful metal siding details that I think are nice but I think your standard airport or bus terminal level of metal siding detail probably won’t cut it. Mr. Iwersen: Our intent is definitely not to go that route but to be off higher quality on all levels. Chair Lew: I would say, just based on the neighborhood, you would either way. A lot of the area around Fry’s site, where all railroad warehouses so they were corrugated metal, utilitarian buildings so you could tie into that or you could make something else on El Camino so yeah, I don’t – I think you could either way on that. I think I’m really more concerned about just the quality and the details and we have some projects that have – there’s the mixed-use building on Birch Street, where we had a – it was a debate with the developer whether or not to use granite cladding on the first floor or porcelain tile and there were two architects on the team. They were sort of arguing amongst themselves on which one to use and I think they went with the porcelain tile, which didn’t look so great because it looks thin. I think the issue is just trying to make – if you are trying to do a stone, just to make it look robust. Mr. Iwersen: Yeah, definitely you’re not trying to make it look thin. You know, that’s a… City of Palo Alto Page 75 Chair Lew: Ok, that’s all that I have. I think you are on the right track. Any last comments? Board Member Baltay: Let me throw out – you were asking and I am looking at you El Camino elevation a little more critically now and I’ll throw a couple things at you. It seems every window has a different proportion and there’s not enough consistency. The commercial entrance as square transoms above it, whereas the residential stuff is very tall, narrow windows. The one to the right is more deeply recessed and you have this curved piece as well and it’s a little bit too much. You want to simplify and find a consistency there. Yeah? I think that the horizontal siding is a very attractive thing. You see that a lot of high-end contemporary homes where they are using Ipe or Teak even or cedar and things like that. They are incredibly high maintenance and very difficult to put in well. Mr. Iwersen: That’s why we were going hardy. Board Member Baltay: So, we’ve also used, in my firm, hardy board stuff. The premium one, which I think 5/8s or 7/8 is really quite attractive. The devils in the details and you really want to miter those corners. Hardy Board is not a very easy material to work with when it comes to mitering corners. What they give you is a metal piece that you nail on top of it, which looks pretty tacky. You want to think hard about what your approach is going to be but that deep shadow line on the horizontal lines can look really attractive but then I wouldn’t want to see – it looks like you have some sort of a reliever or a regulate divided up. Mr. Iwersen: Yeah and that’s what I am wondering if maybe those for the corners instead and makes this more of panelized item than… Board Member Baltay: I would think less is more and you want a constant vocabulary. If you are going for a horizontal series of shadow lines, then I wouldn’t try to put a vertical element to it. I am just challenging you that a lot of architect’s want to use that heavy hardy board stuff and the devil is in the corner. We’ve done it where we’ve has the guys us bondo and it’s a labor of love to get that looking good and lasting because it cracks. The same thing on your roof soffit up in the very top. Again, it’s just how you detail that out more. A little bit more detail when you come back to us is really very helpful to us. What I found is not a series of hard technical details but rather just zoomed in images and stuff that are showing what you are really intending is very useful. Mr. Iwersen: We will definitely do that. Board Member Baltay: If I could, I wanted to come back once more because I want to be sure that you are hearing at least me on this, that what I am seeing on the parking on this, the more I look at it, the more I think it doesn’t really function. You have two trees in the parking area and a landscaping in the parking sort of mirroring the opening above it and at least last time that I have had a project go through the Transportation Department, they gave us a lot of grief about backup space and turning radius and I can’t see them approving this. Mr. Iwersen: Well, actually, I think it’s – the landscape area does not mimic the opening above. It’s much tighter. Once again, we have to get the landscape architect more involved on this point. Board Member Baltay: In my firm, we are working a similar scale project and we’ve tremendous challenges getting the parking to really work and it’s wishful thinking sometimes what you’ve drawn here. In the reality is that you are going to be forced to make it really function smoothly and well. Mr. Iwersen: We have more than enough backup space there for us to get a planting are along that edge underneath that opening. Board Member Baltay: I’m just cautioning you to take it seriously and put some effort into really figuring it out. Make sure the City’s Transportation Department is on board when it comes back to use, we’re City of Palo Alto Page 76 going to have to say yes or no. It’s the third time back so I would really appreciate – I want you to hear strongly what I am saying about this parking and several Board Members have said now that the big garage opening to the backyard is a question of whether you can back up or not. I am cautioning you that you are proposing to drive under neither a heritage oak tree. Last, I checked, you just can’t do that in Palo Alto. Don’t go down that road and found out that your whole design is contingent upon the need of that backup space. Mr. Iwersen: Thank you. I agree. Board Member Gooyer: Please, take a look at that carefully. Thank you. Chair Lew: Ok… Board Member Gooyer: One quick question, what’s a utility consultant? Mr. Iwersen: That would be the Joint Trench, typically. Board Member Gooyer: The what? Mr. Iwersen: Joint Trench. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Mr. Iwersen: In this case [Terar] but they worked on the previous project and we didn’t – we were coming through with a full-blown proposal, they’d have already vetted it as well and that’s why we didn’t want to go down that road of a full blown consultant. Board Member Gooyer: That’s fine. I just had never heard of it before. Ms. Gerhardt: Board Members, if I may? I think we only heard from two people about the driveway opening. The 16-feet that needs a DEE so if we could get some clarification on that. Board Member Baltay: I am perfectly fine with granting a DEE for that. Board Member Furth: I am too. Chair Lew: I said I was ok before. Ok, we need a motion. I think the Staff wants to us to continue to a date uncertain. MOTION Board Member Baltay: Ok, I move that we continue this project to a date uncertain. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. Chair Lew: Ok, motion by Baltay and seconded by Gooyer, all in favor? Opposed? None. So, that’s a 4-0 Kim absent. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH VICE CHAIR KIM ABSENT Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Mr. Iwersen: Thank you very much. City of Palo Alto Page 77 6. 4115 El Camino Real [17PLN-00085]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed Three-Story, 16,747 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Retail, Second Floor Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (Seven Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade Parking Level. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be subject to CEQA review. Zoning District: CN. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. This item has been continued to the next meeting of June 15, 2017. This item was not recorded as it was continued to the next meeting of June 15, 2017. Approval of Minutes Subcommittee Item Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Adjournment