The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-07-20 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: July 20, 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 Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 567 Maybell Avenue [15PLN-00248]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Four Single-Family Residences and Construction of 16 two-Story Single-Family Residences With Basements. Environmental Assessment: Consistent with Previously Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. Zoning Districts: R-2 and RM-15 (Two Family and Low Density Multi-Family Residential). For More Information Contact Contract Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3045 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00073]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing Office Building and Construction of a new Two-Story 29,120 Square Foot R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: GM (AD) (General Manufacturing with Automobile Dealership Combing District). For More _______________________ 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. Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. 356 Hawthorne Avenue [17PLN-00109]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed 4,720 Square Foot, Multi-Family Development Comprised of Three Detached Single-Family Residential Units Each With an Attached Single Car Garage. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. 5. 640 Waverley Street [17PLN-00105]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed Three-Story, 9,733 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development With a Basement. The Proposal Consists of Office Space on the Ground Floor and Basement Level, and a Residential Unit on the Second and Third Floor. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 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. 2017 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/5/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Canceled 1/19/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Peter Baltay 3/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/4/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/18/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay/Kim 6/1/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/15/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Robert Gooyer 7/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Peter Baltay 7/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Wynne Furth 8/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/8/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/22/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/15/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/29/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2017 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) July August September October November December (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8291) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/20/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 567 Maybell Avenue: 16 Single Family Residential Units (3rd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 567 Maybell Avenue [15PLN-00248]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Four Single-Family Residences and Construction of 16 two-Story Single-Family Residences With Basements. Environmental Assessment: Consistent with Previously Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. Zoning Districts: R-2 and RM-15 (Two Family and Low Density Multi-Family Residential). For More Information Contact Contract Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted for this project and 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 on two other occasions. The Municipal Code encourages the Director of Planning and Community Development to make a decision on projects after three public hearings. Earlier staff reports include background information, project analysis and evaluation to City codes and policies; these reports are available online; a copy of both staff reports without prior attachments is available in Attachment E: June 15, 2017: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Staff Report: Attachment E and https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=58268 Minutes: Are contained within Attachment F. Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-64/ February 2, 2017: Staff Report: Attachment E and http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=55688 Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=56130 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-56/ 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 earlier reports and modified to reflect recent project changes. The ARB is encouraged to make a final recommendation to approve, conditionally approve or deny the project. Background On June 15, 2017, the ARB reviewed the project for a second time. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online (noted above). The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Lot 6: Parking shall be reconfigured to ensure that maneuvering is practical. The applicant proposes a new option for consideration that includes tandem parking and the driveway located on the right side of a protected oak tree. Lot 1: Second floor wood clad bay window elements should not be the same height, provide more differentiation of the bay windows, the large window should be reduced in size, the front porch element is too thin. The applicant reduced the height of the wood clad bay window elements, reduced the size of the large window on the right- side elevation, and increased the thickness of the front porch roof element. Lot 2: Remove the decorative chimney elements; two horizontal window elements should be modified to be consistent with the rest of the design; 1st floor level eave should be modulated to be less expansive. The applicant removed the decorative chimney elements. The applicant changed one of the horizontal windows, however, did not address the rear horizontal window. Lot 4: Modify the front elevation; roof eaves should be more carefully integrated between the first and second floor; second floor shed roof on the second level be lowered (as a set - start at 8-foot plate height). The applicant changed the roof style to a gable and lowered the second level to a maximum 8-foot plate height. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Lot 5: Sheet A5.2. Modify the white vertical element by removing it or not making it co- planer. The applicant removed the white vertical element. Lot 6: Sheet A6.3. Lower the shed roof on the second level by a foot. The applicant proposes a different style to accommodate the change to the driveway, so this comment does not apply. Lot 7: Modify chimney element so it not coplanar with the rest of the siding; A7.2 window fenestration on the front elevation so the windows are more coherent. The applicant modified the chimney to not be coplanar and one set of the horizontal oriented windows are consistent with the remainder of the house. The applicant did not address one of the front horizontal oriented windows. Lot 8: All decorative chimneys shall be removed. The applicant removed the chimney. Lot 9: Amend the second-floor plate height to 8 feet. The applicant amended the floor plate height to 8 feet. Lot 10: Eliminate the decorative chimneys. The applicant removed the chimney. Lot 11: Decorative chimneys shall be removed; roof pitched over the entry is be consistent with the rest of the house; the bay window on the second floor is to be reduced in size to be more consistent with the rest of the house. The applicant removed the chimneys, changed the pitch of the roof over the entry, reduced the size of the bay windows on the second floor. Lot 12: Eliminate the decorative chimney. The applicant removed the chimney. Lot 13: Eliminate the decorative chimney. The applicant removed the chimney. Lot 14: Eliminate the decorative chimneys. The applicant removed the chimneys. Lot 15: Eliminate the decorative chimneys; the roof element on the first floor needs to be sloped or reconfigured to better integrate with the design on the house; the bay windows to be reduced in scale and size. The applicant removed the chimneys, front first floor roof is now sloped and bay windows are decreased in depth. Lot 16: Chimney element on the left shall not be coplanar with the first floor. The applicant changed the chimney to not be coplanar. Overall parking for the project. Concern regarding guest parking. As the project currently meets Code requirements, no changes are proposed. Analysis1 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 The Board discussed by lot where the project could improve as summarized in the previous table. The following sections describe in detail the issues, the responses and whether the revisions are adequate. Lot 6 Driveway Summary of Concern The Board had concern that the driveway is designed in such a way that is not practical for daily maneuvering of a vehicle. The Board directed the applicant to revise the driveway. Summary of Response and Analysis The lot has three protected oak trees along its frontage (#1, #2 and #3 as indicated on the plans), which create a constraint in providing access from the street to the site. The previous design was trying to preserve the trees, while providing access to the site and maintaining a house plan type used in the development. While, technically, the driveways are not deficient against any transportation standard there is recognition that the design was awkward and potentially impractical for daily use. The applicant proposes to provide a different layout to the parking, which includes a new floor plan. The parking is now in a tandem arrangement and provides a driveway that passes on the right side of the protected oak tree (#3). This would require an easement to be recorded on the adjacent property (Lot 7) because a portion of the driveway encroaches onto Lot 7. The project’s tree protection survey did not anticipate the driveway being on that side. The tree protection survey would need to be updated to provide recommendations and determine the feasibility of locating the driveway on the opposite side. As of the writing of this report, the arborist report is being updated and it is anticipated that the location of the driveway will be feasible. If found to be feasible, the Urban Forestry Division recommends locating a bollard adjacent to the oak tree trunk to protect against accidental collision. The Transportation Division also reviewed the layout and determined that driveway provides adequate area for maneuvering for typical passenger vehicles. Because this layout requires the driveway to encroach onto the adjacent property, an easement needs to be included to ensure that a 10- foot width is maintained for the driveway. Given the concerns by the Board of the previous layout, if the arborist report determines that the new layout is feasible, staff recommends selecting the proposed layout. The tandem arrangement is more typical than the ‘s’ driveway leading to the uncovered space. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Lot 6 Previous Lot 6 Proposed Various Architectural Elements Summary of Concern The Board went into detail by Lot of what should be changed (as mentioned in the previous table) to ensure the project is consistent with the Findings for Architectural Review. Summary of Response and Analysis The applicant made the appropriate changes as directed by the Board. The following includes comparisons between what was proposed and what is currently proposed to address those concerns. These changes make the project more consistent with Findings #2 and #3. Lot 1 Previous Lot 1 Proposed Lot 1: The wood clad windows were lowered in height, the bay window is smaller in dimension and the front porch roof is now thicker providing better balance along the front elevation. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Lot 2 Previous Lot 2 Proposed Lot 2: The decorative chimneys were removed. The first-floor roof is more modulated by eliminating the long roof eave. Only one of the horizontally oriented windows were changed (labeled “left side” elevation). A condition of approval is included to change the second horizontal oriented window along the rear elevation. Lot 4 Previous Lot 4 Proposed Lot 4: The shed roof is replaced with a pitched roof and the ceiling height is reduced to start the plate height from eight feet. Lot 5 Previous Lot 5 Proposed City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Lot 5: The white vertical element is removed creating a coherent and unified elevation. Lot 6: Based on the comments by the Board to propose a different driveway layout, the applicant changed the style of the house. The previous comments regarding the shed roof do not apply. Staff seeks direction by the Board on the new design of the house. Lot 7 Previous Lot 7 Proposed Lot 7: The chimney is not coplanar with the adjacent wall and the fenestration is more consistent along the elevations. One of the horizontal windows were changed along the front, however, staff recommends that a condition of approval would be to change the second one along the front. Lot 8: The decorative chimneys were removed. Lot 9 Previous Lot 9 Proposed Lot 9: The plate height on the second story has been reduced by one foot. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Lot 11 Previous Lot 11 Proposed Lot 11: The decorative chimneys are removed and the pitch on the entry roof is consistent with the pitch throughout the house. The second-floor bay windows are also reduced. Lot 15 Previous Lot 15 Proposed Lot 15: The decorative chimneys are removed and roof over the porch and entry is sloped to provide consistency with the rest of the house. The bay windows are also reduced in depth. Lots 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16. The Board commented to remove the decorative chimneys. In response, the applicant has removed those elements. Parking Concerns Summary of Concern The Board had concerns about the amount of provided parking, especially related to guest parking. Summary of Response and Analysis As the project currently meets Code requirements, no changes are proposed. The Zoning Code requires two parking spaces per single-family unit that has been provided within garages for each home. Additional, as shown on Sheet A0.5a, each site is also provided with a driveway large enough to accommodate two additional cars. The Tentative Map for this project was approved on June 20, 2016. The project was found to be consistent with PAMC 21.20.240 regarding street widths. There are two private streets in a City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 “hammerhead” configuration. One serves six units and the other serves four units. For both streets, the development provides a minimum 20-foot setback between the street and the building allowing for on-site parking in a driveway. For the street serving four units, the street may not be less than 22-feet wide, which is the case. For the street serving six units, the street may not be less than 26-feet wide, which is the case. The project was specifically approved with this layout with the street widths and setbacks. This setback allows for a longer driveway that accommodates guest parking, therefore in staff’s professional opinion no changes to the subdivision layout are required to accommodate additional parking. 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 was previously evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration when the Tentative Map component was approved by the City on June 20, 2017. The project description in addition to the subdivision included the site development of 16 single-family dwelling units. The project description anticipated the units having basements and that the project would meet the minimum requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The project has not substantially changed and no new mitigation measures are necessary. The environmental setting remains similar to when the CEQA document was adopted by the City Council. The Director’s decision will include a finding that the action being recommended by the ARB was adequately considered in the prior CEQA document and will incorporate required mitigation measures as conditions of approval. In addition, staff will incorporate standard conditions of approval related to basement dewatering, construction logistics plan and similar conditions to minimize construction related impacts. Link to prior Final Mitigated Negative Declaration: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52262 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten day in advance. As this project was continued to a date certain by the ARB, no additional mailed noticing was conducted. However, notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 7, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 10, 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 X 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: February 2, 2017 ARB Staff Report w/o attachments (PDF)  Attachment F ARB June 15th Meeting minutes excerpt (DOCX)  Attachment G: Applicant Response Letter July 13, 2017 (PDF)  Attachment H: Project plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org R-1 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 567 Maybell Avenue 15PLN-00248 Section A: 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 following table summarizes how the project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive 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 Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential. The project proposes single-family residences. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces. The project is a compact single-family use development within walking distance of the El Camino Real commercial corridor. 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 will complete a gap in the sidewalk that currently exists along the project’s Maybell Avenue frontage. This new sidewalk with enhance safety along the Maybell Avenue corridor that includes a public park and schools and is heavily used by all forms of transportation during the morning and afternoons when schools are in session. 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 is designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by providing transitional, traditional and contemporary designs, which is consistent with the adjacent Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan neighborhood. The scale of the units, colors and materials are also similar. Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. There is a public park across the project along Clemo Avenue. The project will not be altering the park in any way. 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 will eliminate a sidewalk gap along Maybell Avenue. A sidewalk will be provided along the internal private street. Street trees will be provided along the sidewalks, and benches for resting are provided in the public park directly across Clemo Avenue. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project includes 16 unique designed buildings. The design represents the mix of styles found in the adjacent neighborhood. The project provides a variety of architectural styles, and is consistent with the surrounding development patterns. In addition, the design of the project as conditioned is internally consistent. The project has been reviewed by the Board on two previous occasions and the applicant has responded to the changes necessitated by the Board. The project is consistent with the zoning requirements for single-family uses including, height, floor area ratio, setbacks, daylight planes and lot coverage. 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 proposed project is consistent with the finding in that the area is comprised of various residential buildings, of mostly single or two story heights. However, the adjacent property does include mid-rise building. In addition, adjacent to the site is a public park. The project provides the required setbacks and relief between the subject property and surrounding properties. Internally, the project provides the appropriate transitions between properties and respects the setbacks. As conditioned, the project’s design is compatible with the surrounding residential development. The one outstanding issue is the driveway alignment for Lot 6, which requires an updated Tree Protection Report to determine what protection measures are necessary to protect oak tree #3. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides a variety of architecture with differing visual elements. All four sides of the buildings provide appropriate visual attention. At the same time, there are three consistent design themes that provide harmony and are compatible with the surrounding existing developments. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the structures on the lots respect the adjacent lots’ yards and respect the privacy of neighboring development as well as on-site buildings by providing adequate setbacks and locating windows as to not be directly in line with windows on neighboring properties. The applicant has provided information to demonstrate this in the plan set. As conditioned, this finding can be made in the affirmative in that for single-family development the garage and uncovered spaces are appropriately designed and conform to Zoning Code requirements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the site includes a variety of architectural styles in a simplified palette. The applicant has responded to the various requests by the Board to improve this aspect of the project and provide a high quality project. 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 project includes a variety of architecture. Each of the units incorporates one of three architectural themes, however, each unit has different elements that are consistent with that theme. The project includes metal, stone, stucco, wood material used in a manner that is appropriate with the architectural theme. The project includes three styles of architecture and within those styles, the separate plans include a simplified palette. 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: Five units are proposed along Maybell Avenue with four units sharing two driveways and one unit possessing its own. A private street entrance on Clemo Avenue would provide both ingress and egress for the 11 units on the interior of the site. There is no direct vehicular access from Clemo to Maybell (however, emergency vehicles do have access), so the vehicular traffic on Clemo will need to traverse Arastradero Road to get to El Camino Real or Foothill Expressway. The project site is within the vicinity of Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School and Gunn High School. Maybell Avenue, Clemo Avenue and Arastradero Road are considered walking and biking routes to these facilities. With these institutions, Maybell Avenue experiences heavy pedestrian and bicycle usage during the mornings and afternoons when the schools are in session. The project includes construction of a sidewalk along the Maybell Avenue frontage, which would eliminate an existing gap between the site to the north and Clemo Avenue. The inclusion of this sidewalk will help make the site and neighborhood more pedestrian accessible. The project includes shared driveways so that backing is minimized along Maybell Avenue. As conditioned, an updated tree protection report will determine the feasibility of locating a driveway on the right side of the protected oak #3 adjacent to Lot 6 or require that the matter be returned to an ARB subcommittee. A priority is to protect the mature oak trees along Clemo Avenue. At the same time, an objective is to provide practical vehicular access to the property and minimize any conflicts with pedestrians. 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 preserves trees and relocates trees where necessary to design a better neighborhood, while protecting the integrity of the trees. The design includes permeable pavers that will reduce storm water runoff and increase infiltration. As designed, unnecessary pavement areas are replaced with vegetation. The project’s landscaping includes drought tolerant species and a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials suitable to the area. The plantings are focused on the most visible locations such as along the streets (Maybell, Clemo and the private street). 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 sheet GB-1 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures including storm water drainage, topsoil protection, electric vehicle charging outlets, laundry to landscape diversion, other water efficiency and conservation measures and the use of low odor and off-gassing materials in construction and finishes. Construction of the site will also divert at least 75% of the waste associated with construction. Section B: CEQA Findings The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was adopted by the City on June 20, 2017. At that time, the CEQA document included a project description that contemplated the subdivision as well as the construction of the entire project. The project’s architectural review was deferred until later. In review of the project, the project substantially conforms to the project description contained within the adopted CEQA document. The project setting has not changed since the adoption of the CEQA document. No new mitigation measures are necessary to implement the project. No conditions exist to recirculate document. Accordingly no additional environmental analysis is required. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the County establishing the effectiveness of the approval of the project. ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 567 Maybell Ave 15PLN-00248 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Maybell Avenue Site, 567 Maybell Avenue, Palo Alto,” stamped as received by the City on July 12, 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. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes. a. LOT 2 and LOT 7 WINDOWS. Revise the horizontal set of windows along the rear elevation to be consistent with the remainder of the house. 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. OBSCURED GLAZING. All obscure glazing, as shown on the plan set, shall be permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Obscure glazing is either decorative glazing that does not allow views through placed into the window frame or acid etched or similar permanent alteration of the glass. Films or like additions to clear glass are not permitted where obscure glazing is shown. Obscure glazing shall not be altered in the future and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged. If operable, these windows shall open towards the public right-of-way. 6. REQUIRED PARKING: All single family homes 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). 7. 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. 8. BAY WINDOWS: Bay windows if at least 18 inches above the interior floor, projecting no more than two feet, and with more than 50% window surface shall not be counted towards the homes floor area ratio (FAR). Any changes to proposed bay windows must first be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 9. 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. 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. LIGHT WELLS. Railings around light wells shall be screened from street view. Screening may consist of plant material or fencing. 12. BASEMENT WALLS: Basement retaining walls shall not extend beyond the exterior wall plane of the first floor of the house, excluding lightwells, below grade patios and approved extensions, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Approved extensions included a maximum of two basement areas under a roofed entry to the unit that complete the square. 13. 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. 14. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Development Impact Fees (estimated in the amount of $1,067,232) shall be paid prior to building permit issuance, as provided under Chapter 16.64 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 15. AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT: This project is subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section 16.65.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. On June 20, 2016, the Palo Alto City Council approved the Applicant’s request to satisfy this requirement through the payment of fees in lieu of providing on-site affordable housing. The Applicant shall execute and record an affordable housing regulatory agreement and pay any applicable housing in-lieu fee prior to building permit issuance or by an alternative date specified by the City Council by ordinance or resolution. 16. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If any of these conditions of approval constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, to the extent a court of competent jurisdiction determines the relevant limitations period did not expire following the City Council’s June 20, 2016 conditional approval, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. 17. 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. 18. NESTING BIRD PROTECTION MITIGATION (BIO -1 From Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration). To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. 19. TREE PROTECTION REPORT & DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 6. The owner or designee shall update the project’s Tree Protection Report to determine if providing a driveway on Lot 6 on the right side of the protection oak tree (#3 on the tree survey) is feasible to avoid significant injury to the trees. If it is found to be feasible to locate the driveway on the right side of the oak tree, then the owner or designee shall also locate a bollard in a location adjacent to the driveway to further protect the trunk of the oak tree. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT OR BUILDING PERMIT: 20. FINAL MAP shall be recorded. 21. 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 Rough Grading and 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.” 22. 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 23. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall include the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), existing utilities, temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), existing trees to remain and tree protection measures, etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand- alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 24. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. Since the existing storm drain line is to remain, plot and label the line on the shoring plans. Provide shoring for the storm drain line if necessary. 25. DEWATERING: Basement excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition, Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 26. WATER SUPPLY STATION: Applicant shall install a water station for the 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. Applicant shall meet with Public Works - Engineering Services to coordinate the design details and location of the station prior to applying for a dewatering permit. 27. NOTICE OF INTENT: If the proposed development disturbs more than one acre of land, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site-specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post construction Best Management Practices (BMP) for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to Public Works Engineering for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 28. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department and the Planning Division that addresses all impacts to the public road 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, phasing plan and contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. 29. GROUNDWATER USE PLAN: A Groundwater Use Plan (GWUP) shall be submitted for review for any project which requires dewatering. The GWUP, a narrative that shall be included in or accompany the Dewatering Plan, must demonstrate the highest beneficial use practicable of the pumped groundwater. The GWUP shall also state that all onsite, non-potable water needs such as dust control shall be met by using the pumped groundwater. Delays in submitting the GWUP can result in delays in the issuance of your discharge permit as Public Works requires sufficient review time which shall be expected by the applicant. 30. Dewatering Permit Time Duration: The Dewatering Permits (Note: The City uses Street Work Permits to serve as Dewatering Permits.) will be limited to a maximum of 10 weeks from the date of issuance. After 10 weeks, the permit will expire and any dewatering occurring afterwards will incur an administrative citation of $500 per day of dewatering. It is in the best interest of the Contractors and applicants to have as much onsite equipment (settling tanks, dewatering wells, pumps, water stations, etc.) in place as much as possible before the permit is issued, so that the Contractor and applicants can maximize their dewatering time once the permit is issued. The 10- week permit duration does not apply to commercial projects, which will be addressed on a case by- case basis. 31. Guidelines for Dewatering During Basement or Below-Ground Garage Construction: If the proposed work requires dewatering, note and address the attached Guidelines for Dewatering During Basement or Below-Ground Garage Construction. In regards to the water truck hauling, the applicant will need to provide proof that they have hired a water truck to deliver water (1) day per week to discharge the groundwater to sites identified by the City before the Dewatering Permit can be issued. The applicant will need to hire onto the City’s current contract with the water truck. The applicant has the option to use the water truck services offered by the City. If the applicant chooses to use the City’s water truck services, the applicant shall contact Walter Passmore (E: walter.passmore@cityofpaloalto.org and P: 650.496.5986) from Urban Forestry or Daren Anderson (E: daren.anderson@cityofpaloalto.org and P: 650.496.6950) from Community Services for more information. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 32. STREET TREES: 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”. 33. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include a table that shows the earthwork (cut and fill) volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans including Rough Grading and Shoring Plans are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available on our Public Works website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 34. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.28 and Grading & Drainage Guidelines for Residential Development form for guidelines. Adjacent grades must slope away from the building foundation at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2010 CBC Section 1804.3. 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 or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscape and other pervious areas of the site. Plan shall also include a drainage system is required for all exterior basement-level spaces such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from back of sidewalk and 3 feet from side and rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in the landscaped area. Note: Applicant shall clearly indicate if they will apply for Grading and Excavation Permit prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 35. 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”. 36. The site drainage system that collects runoff from downspouts and/or landscape area shall be a separated from the pump system that discharges runoff from light wells. Plot and clearly label the two separate systems and including the separate outfalls for each system. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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 40. CONCEPTUAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: The plans sheet TM6.0 shows the graphical depiction of the designated bio-retention areas along with the drainage areas. This plan shows that the storm water runoff from the entire lot is designed to drain into 14 treatment areas. In other words, the runoff from the impervious roof areas and the runoff from the pervious landscape will be combined into one area. However, sheet TM7.0 which shows the tabulated break down of the impervious and pervious areas, shows that the bio-retention areas are only sized to treat the impervious surfaces. To eliminate the conflict, revise sheet TM6.0 so only the impervious surface is draining into the bio-retention areas. The runoff from pervious surface collected by area drains shall be directed to another dispersal area within private property. The pervious surface runoff shall be a separate system, also located 10-feet from the back of sidewalk. 41. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bio-swales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third- party reviewer during the building permit review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 42. Regulated projects with 3,000 SF or more of pervious pavement systems installed required installation inspections. The project is proposing to install permeable pavers, provide permeable pavement area per lot and the total permeable area for the site. Plan shall include a detail for the permeable pavement system. 43. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Barron Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. 44. 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 landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. Downspouts shall daylight away from the foundation. 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 and flow by gravity to the public storm drain line. Storm water runoff that is pumped shall not be directly piped into the public storm drain line. 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. The plans provided show the storm water detention, however the proposed calculations and analysis was not submitted with the planning process. Applicant shall provide the calculation for the detention directly on the plans. Calculation shall be based on the 10 year, 24 hours storm. Include the intensity used for the 10 and 100 year storms. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing public storm drain system in the Maybell Avenue to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. 45. TRANSFORMER AND UTILITIES: Applicant shall be aware that the project may trigger water line and meter upgrades or relocation, if upgrades or relocation are required, the building permit plan set shall plot and label utility changes. If a backflow preventer is required, it shall be located within private property and plotted on the plans. Similarly, the transformer shall also be located within the private property. 46. 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. 47. The following note shall be shown on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan: “Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 48. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite or within private property. 49. 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. Project shall also replace the two existing at the intersection of Clemo and Maybell Avenue with new accessibly compliant ramps. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan and grading and drainage plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. At a minimum the curb and gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage shall be shown to be replaced. 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. 50. RESURFACING: The applicant is required to resurface (grind and overlay) the entire width of Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue along the project frontages. 51. 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”. 52. 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). 53. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie- backs for the basement, provide signed copies of the original agreements with the adjacent property owners. The agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective properties PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL 54. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $381 (FY 2015) C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 55. STORM WATER TREATMENT: At the time of installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, a third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 56. Contractor and/or Applicant shall prepare and submit an electronic copy of the Off-Site Improvements As-Built set of plans to Public Works for the City’s records. The as-built set shall include all the improvements within the public road right-of-way and include items such as: shoring piles, tiebacks, public storm drain improvements, traffic signs, street trees, location of any vaults or boxes, and any other item that was installed as part of this project. GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS: NOTICE FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER 1/1/17: Please be advised that the Palo Alto City Council has approved Energy Ordinance 5383 and Green Building Ordinance 5393 for all new permit applications with an effective date for January 1st, 2017. To review the upcoming changes, visit the Development Services webpage .On the left-hand side under “EXPLORE”, hover over “Green Building” and select “Compliance.” For information regarding the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, please see the Outdoor Water Efficiency Webpage for compliance documentation. You may also email Green Building at GreenBuilding@cityofpaloalto.org for specific questions about your project. 1. 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. 5393 § 1, 2016) (1) *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 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18 as described in the Energy Reach Code section of this letter. b) Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO): The project is a residential new construction project with an aggregate landscape area of 500 square feet or more included in the project scope of work and therefore shall comply with the requirements of the Landscape Documentation Package (§492.3). Please see the Outdoor Water Efficiency Webpage for compliance documentation. (MWELO Title 23, Chapter 2.7) c) The project is a residential construction project of any size and therefore must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at Tier 2 (7580% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) d) The project is a new detached single-family dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE): (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. 5393 §2, 2016) 2. 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 there are two compliance options and one all-electric exception. i) Single-Family Residential Options: (1) OPTION 1: Performance: New single- family residential construction projects without a solar photovoltaic (PV) system, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 10% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, if the proposed building does not include a PV systems. (a) Solar Ready Infrastructure: A dedicated solar zone shall be located on the rood or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. Install a conduit extending from the roofline and terminating at the electrical panel. (2) OPTION 2: Performance: New single- family residential construction projects with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed single-family residential construction is at least 20% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, if the proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (a) Solar Ready Infrastructure: A dedicated solar zone shall be located on the rood or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. Install a conduit extending from the roofline and terminating at the electrical panel. b) All Electric Exemption: i) All- Electric Exception to the Local Energy Reach Code: New single-family residential construction that is designed and built to be all-electric shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 100.3. Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. 3. 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. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 57. 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. 58. 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. 59. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating the duration and monitoring program. The appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees to remain shall recognize the location of each tree in the proposed development. Listed separately, the appraisal may be part of the Tree Survey Report. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plan Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director’s approval. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for the 150% of the appraised replacement value of the following 23 Designated Trees: (ID numbers to be determined), to be retained and protected. The total amount for this project is: $__To Be Determined with Urban Forestry staff. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees remain and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program shall end two years from date of final occupancy, unless extended due to tree mortality and replacement, in which case a new two-year monitoring program and annual evaluation report for the replacement tree shall begin. Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review and approval. The final report shall summarize the Tree Resources program, documenting tree or site changes to the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care maintenance practices for the property owner(s). The owner or project sponsor shall call for a final inspection by the Planning Division Arborist. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be two years (or five years if determined by the Director) from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. A new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be readapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. 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 _________ "; 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” 63. 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 64. 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. 65. 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 66. 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. 67. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, ArborResources, (650-496-5953, 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. 68. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 69. 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. 70. 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. 71. 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 72. 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). 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 76. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. UTILITIES ELECTRIC ENGINEERING 77. Easement shall be given for all the equipment on site. 78. Ingress/Egress easement is required to access all the equipment on site. 79. Show conduit routing to MH3435 which is right in front of Fire Station 5. 80. Show conduit routing from secondary box to street light pedestal. 81. The electric primary power for this project will come from an existing underground system at the corner of Arastradero and Clemen Ave. 82. CPAU will require easements at multiple locations for equipment such as load break, transformer, vault, underground box and conduits.CPAU will also require ingress/egress easement to access these equipment. 83. The locations of the equipment mentioned above shall be determined by CPAU and the developer. The clearance for the pad mount equipment is a typical 3’ all around and 8’ in front. Conduit route shall be clear of tree drip line. 84. The locations of the electric service for all the individual houses shall be close to the service points determined in step 4 above. 85. Applicant shall provide all the electric load information for transformer sizing. 86. Each parcel shall only have one electric service. The “Duet” units seem to be on a single parcel; therefore, will only have one electric service per “Duet”. Consequently, each “Duet” shall have one common electric panel with two meters on it. 87. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 88. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 89. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE 90. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 91. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 92. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 93. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 94. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 95. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 96. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 97. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 98. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 99. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 100. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 101. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 102. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned an maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 103. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 104. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. DURING CONSTRUCTION 105. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 106. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 107. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 108. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 109. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 110. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 111. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 112. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 113. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 114. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 115. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 116. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 117. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 118. All fees must be paid. 119. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. SUBDIVISION PROJECTS 120. There may be other conditions applicable to your project that can be found in previous sections of this document. 121. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. 122. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed within the subdivision as required by the City. 123. The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e. conduits, boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities. 124. The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads, streetlights system, etc.) on the subdivision parcel map. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground Inspector. 125. The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and conductors) to single-family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection and approval from both the Building Department and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 126. The tentative parcel map shall show all required easements as requested by the City. BUILDING DIVISION Include in plans submitted for a building permit: 127. The permit application shall be accompanied by all plans and related documents necessary to construct a complete project. 128. Separate submittals and permits are required for the following systems and components if utilized: E.V., P.V., and Solar Hot Water systems. 129. Deferred submittals shall be limited to as few items as possible. 130. A written outline/plan needs to be provide prior to building permit issuance to demonstrate compliance with CBC Section 3302 (Construction Safeguards) and Section 3306 (Protection of Pedestrians) during construction. 131. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing buildings on site. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 567 Maybell Avenue, 15PLN-00248 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTERS 18.12 (R-1 DISTRICT)* AND 18.10 (R-2 DISTRICT) *R-1 regulations apply to single-family uses in RM-15 District. Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 2.46 acres Minimum/Contextual Front Yard (2) 20 feet or the average setback (18.12.040(e)) 20 feet 20 feet Rear Yard 20 feet 12 feet 20 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet Street Side Yard 16 feet 14 feet 16 feet Special Setback Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Max. Building Height 30 feet or 33 feet for a roof pitch of 12;12 or greater (3) 20 feet Varies, but 28 feet is the tallest Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45-degree angle (6) Not Applicable Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 16 feet at rear setback line then 60-degree angle (6) Not Applicable Complies Max. Site Coverage 35% with an additional 5% for covered patio/ overhangs (42,863 sf) 9 % 29% (32,017 square feet) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 45% for first 5,000 sf lot size and 30% for lot size in excess of 5,000 sf 0.09:1 37% (40,708 square feet) Max. House Size 6,000 sf 2,400 square feet 2,550 square feet max Residential Density One unit per 7,500 square feet of lot area (R-2) One unit, except as provided in 18.12.070 Complies Complies (3) R-1 Floodzone Heights: Provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the maximum heights are increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum building height of 33 feet. (6) R-1 Floodzone Daylight Plane: Provided, if the site is in a special flood hazard area and is entitled to an increase in the maximum height, the heights for the daylight planes shall be adjusted by the same amount. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.12.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Single-Family Residential Uses Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 parking spaces per unit, of which one must be covered 8 spaces 32 total spaces with 16 covered Bicycle Parking None n/a n/a Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7629) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/2/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 567 Maybell Avenue: 16 Single Family Residential Units Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 567 Maybell Avenue [15PLN-00248]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Four Single-Family Residences and the Construction of 16 two-story single-family residences with basements. Environmental Assessment: Consistent with Previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Zoning Districts: R-2 and RM-15. For More Information, Please Contact Contract Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a public hearing and continue the public hearing to a date uncertain. Report Summary Applicant proposes to demolish four existing single-family residences and construct 16 two- story single-family residences with basements on a 2.47-acre site. The project site was subject to a previous tentative map action that established the subdivision. The project is subject to architectural review findings and single-family design criteria. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has previously been prepared for the subdivision application, which anticipated this housing development; no further environmental documentation is necessary. Standard findings for consideration and conditions are included with this report, including special conditions related to reducing the paving area for driveways along Maybell Avenue; the relocation of the detached garage for Lot 14; the elimination of an architectural element for Lot 15; and the reduction in roof-pitch for the first level of the Spanish style units. Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Project Information Owner: Golden Gate Homes, LLC Architect: Studio S Squared Architecture, Inc. Representative: Ted O’Hanlon Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 567 Maybell Avenue Neighborhood: Green Acres Lot Dimensions & Area: 326 ft x 316 ft (2.47 acres) Housing Inventory Site: Yes – 26 Units (Maximum Yield based on Current Zoning) Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes (29 Oaks)(four to be relocated on-site with others retained in place) Historic Resource(s): None Existing Improvement(s): Four single-family, single-story detached dwellings constructed between 1953 and 1968. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant and housing. Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PC-2656 (Multi-Family Residential) West: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) East: PC-2218 (Multi-Family Residential) South: PF (Briones Park) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps, December 2016 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: R-2 Low Density Residential (0.81 acres)/RM-15 (1.65 acres) Comp. Plan Designation: SF Single-Family Residential & MF Multi-Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes. However, not applicable to Single-Family Development 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'): Immediately adjacent to residential uses and districts. Located w/in the Airport Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Influence Area: Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: June 20, 2016. Approval of Tentative Map http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52772 http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-93/ PTC: May 25, 2016. Recommendation of approval to City Council of Tentative Map. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52513 http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-33/ HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish four existing single-story single-family residences. Consistent with the previously approved tentative map that subdivides the property into 16 lots and a private street. The applicant further proposes to construct 16 two-story single-family residences with basements. Five units will replace the existing four units along Maybell Avenue with four units sharing two separate driveways. The interior of the site will have a private street entrance from Clemo Avenue providing both ingress and egress for the 11 units. The project also includes a finished sidewalk along Maybell Avenue eliminating the paving gap that currently exists. The design concept includes a mix of contemporary and Spanish style architecture themes with a transitional style theme that creates a bridge between the contemporary and Spanish styles. While multiple units may share an architectural theme, no two units share the same architectural design. Each unit has two parking spaces. 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 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Neighborhood Setting and Character The 2.46-acre site is relatively flat; a portion of the property is zoned R-2 (0.81 acres) and includes four single-family dwellings that front Maybell Avenue. Another portion of the property is zoned RM-15 (1.65 acres) and is vacant (former orchard) that fronts Clemo Avenue. The property is bounded by two to three-story multi-family dwellings to the north; an eight- story residential tower to the east; Briones Park to the south, and single-family residences to the west. The property is located within the vicinity is Juana Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, the City’s Fire Station #5 and other single-family neighborhoods. Clemo Avenue has no vehicular access to Maybell Avenue, however, pedestrian and bicycle access is allowed. The proposed two-story buildings complement the adjacent structures within the vicinity. There is no dominant architectural style within the area, which includes some original homes and renovated sites. The project adds to an already eclectic mix of styles. The size and scale of the proposed residences in is appropriate to the scale of other single family residences in the neighbor and the layout of homes is compatible with the surrounding community. Zoning Compliance2 Although, the project site is zoned R-2 and RM-15, the application was reviewed, consistent with applicable regulations, to the R-1 development standards since the project proposes single-family development. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is included in 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. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The subject property has a Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations of “Single-Family Residential” and “Multi-Family Residential” that support residential uses. Single-Family residential uses are consistent in both designations. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable Comp Plan standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. On balance, the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 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 6 Housing Element The site is included in the 2015-2023 Housing Element inventory of housing sites, which indicates a maximum yield of 27. While the project would provide fewer units than the number specified in the Housing Element, the Element’s inventory contained a buffer in excess of the city’s State allocation to account for projects such as this. Attachment C provides details on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, the City Council last year approved the subdivision map for the subject site that authorized the 16 lot subdivision. Multi-Modal Access & Parking A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed for the tentative map that includes a project description that is consistent with the architectural review request. The TIA was previously evaluated by the City’s Transportation Division and this evaluation was included in the PTC report in May 2016. Five units are proposed along Maybell Avenue with four units sharing two driveways and one unit possessing its own. A private street entrance on Clemo Avenue would provide both ingress and egress for the 11 units on the interior of the site. There is no direct vehicular access from Clemo to Maybell (however, emergency vehicles do have access), so the vehicular traffic on Clemo will need to traverse Arasterdero Road to get to El Camino Real or Foothill Expressway. The project site is within the vicinity of Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School and Gunn High School. Maybell Avenue, Clemo Avenue and Arastradero Road are considered walking and biking routes to these facilities. With these institutions, Maybell Avenue experiences heavy pedestrian bicycle usage during the mornings and afternoons when the schools are in session. The project includes construction of a sidewalk along the Maybell Avenue frontage, which would eliminate an existing gap between the site to the north and Clemo Avenue. The inclusion of this sidewalk will help make the site more pedestrian accessible. No bicycle parking is required for single-family uses, however, bicycles could be parked in the garage, within the house or somewhere else on the property. Consistency with Application Findings The project is subject to two sets of findings. Architectural Review findings are pursuant to PAMC Section 18.76.020 and Context-Based findings are pursuant to PAMC Section 18.16.090(b). These findings are included in Attachment B for consideration. There are aspects of the project that staff believes should be modified and has incorporated conditions of approval requiring these changes. Specifically, Lots 2 and 3 as well as Lots 4 and 5 share a curb-cut to Maybell Avenue. As proposed, Lots 3 and 5 include significant paving in the front yard to maintain turning movements out of the street-facing garages. The amount of paving seems excessive and could be reduced if the homes on Lots 3 and 5 were placed closer to the north property line. Condition number 3a and b, requires this home be placed within no City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 closer than 9.5 feet of the north property line and the front yard paving to be reduced to the maximum extent feasible as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. In another instance, Lot 14 mostly mirrors Lot 9 (opposite the Lot), however, the detached garage is placed along the north property line, which is adjacent to the front yard of Lot 13. There is room on the property to place the garage along the east property line. Understandably, the lot would have a reduced rear yard, however, that is not uncommon with newer single- family developments to have small rear yards. In addition, Briones Park is a close distance away. Staff proposes two other conditions; one requires the elimination of an architectural roof element for Lot 15. The roof connector on the second floor (front) which shapes the opening through the roof shall be removed because it does not provide any structural integrity or strengthen the architectural identity of the style. Another condition requires the reduction in roof-pitch for the upper level of the Spanish style units to achieve consistency with the lower roof pitch. In the Spanish vernacular, the roof pitch is lower. 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 was previously evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration when the Tentative Map component was approved by the City. The project description in addition to the subdivision included the site development of 16 single-family dwelling units. The project description anticipated the units having basements and that the project would meet the minimum requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the previously completed environmental review, staff will incorporate standard conditions of approval related to basement dewatering, construction logistics plan and similar conditions to minimize construction related impacts. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 20, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 23, 2017, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 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: Findings for consideration (DOCX)  Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 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 Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Wynne Furth, Peter Baltay Absent: Robert Gooyer Action Items 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 567 Maybell Avenue [15PLN-00248]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Four Single-Family Residences and Construction of 16 two-Story Single- Family Residences With Basements. Environmental Assessment: Consistent with Previously Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. Zoning Districts: R-2 and RM-15. For More Information, Please Contact Contract Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us Chair Lew: Public hearing on a quasi-judicial matter for 567 Maybell Avenue. Recommendation on the applicant's request for approval of a Major Architectural Review to allow demolition of four single-family residences and construction of 16, Two-story single-family residences with basements. Environmental assessment is that it’s consistent with previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and the zoning districts are R-2 and RM-15. We have Sheldon Ah Sing, our Project Planner, welcome. Mr. Lait: You know, Chair, maybe before Sheldon speaks I think it might be a better protocol for us to have the disclosures before we get into our presentation so we don’t forget about it. So, if there are any ex-party communications that the Board Members want to share. Chair Lew: I don’t think we have any. Mr. Ah Sing: Ok, thank you. I prepared a PowerPoint presentation and the applicant also has one that goes into much more detail about some of the changes that they have done since the previous meeting. Thank you for the good introduction about the project. Just to remind the Board about the previous meetings, there was an approval already of a tentative map last year that kind of set the stage for the subdivision itself. The applicant has since filed for a final map and following up with that. Then, of course, we had the previous formal ARB meeting back in April and at that time, the Board had a number of comments for the applicant and just kind of running through those and summarize those. There was one about parking, about the amount of guest parking and parking within a private street area. Then just to kind of summarize that, again the project did have an approved tentative map and that map did – it was consistent with the City’s private street requirements and so this project was designed to the private street width. Also with the setback to include the driveways that would have guest parking so we will have a diagram on that later in my slides. There weren’t any changes to the plans in response to that but just as stated in the Staff report, that the project is consistent with the City’s requirements there. There were some comments about that the plans needed more information to help with the evaluation from the Board so the revised plans do show separate floor plans and some clarity to identify the lots. Also, other ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: June 15, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 information was updated and you can tell that the plan set is much more robust. There was a comment about the covered patios and the depth of the covered patios. There was a minor change to that but I think we do believe that was a step forward and to hear from the Board to hear whether or not that was sufficient. There were also some changes with respect to the garage and driveways along Maybell. All the garages are front facing and there is no side entry type of garages. Then there was a comment about the design being kind of complicated so I think that as you hear in the applicant’s presentation that they streamlined some of the design aspects of the project, reduced the amount of stone, and simplified the color pallet for instance. Then there was also a comment lastly about privacy and there was an exhibit about what windows may affect the neighbors and we can go into more detail. If there needs to be a condition of approval regarding obscured glazing with that respect. (Inaudible) the site plan and as mentioned, that all the garages along Maybell are now front facing and that’s really the biggest, I think, site change that you will notice there on that. In respect to the parking, this exhibit shows the required parking, there in blue is the one uncovered space and then the covered space. Then you have the cars that are on the driveway and those are in pink and those would be for the guest parking. If a delivery truck comes in the middle of the day, that really is temporary and it shouldn’t really effect the circulation on that street and within the neighborhood. Then these are some of the elevations showing just a variety of architecture that is being provided and again, the architect will present some of the changes that they have done and we believe that they are adequate. With that conclusion, the project complies with the objective development standards set forth in the City’s zoning code. The ARB did identify a number of issues previously at the last meeting and those concerns, we believe, had been adequately addressed in the proposal. With that, we do have a recommendation that the Board recommends approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation, thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Sheldon. We have – the applicant will have 10-minutes for their presentation. Mr. Ted O’Hanlon: Thank you, Board, we are very pleased to be back here. It’s been 4-months since February and we’re hoping that we’ve provided you guys what you need. Chair Lew: Can you just state your name for our records, please. Mr. O’Hanlon: Of course, my name is Ted O’Hanlon and I am a consulting project manager for the owners Golden Gate Homes. I have been involved in the project for 3-years now, as a matter, a fact and I am going to hand this over to our lead architect but I did want to speak to something. We just want to make sure that is our clear and in the open and that is related to parking on the site. Sheldon recognized that in his with the exhibit, which is A-0.5C, which shows that these aren’t homes with aprons and really no driveways. They will provide a level of guest parking in and of themselves. It remains to be seen what the 26-foot wide street will provide and where red striping or no parking signs might be at the requirement of the fire marshal but in any event, the homes do provide a nice chunk of real estate for (inaudible) cars. We’re a little bit defensive about the issue and it took us a long time to get here. The tentative map that was approved last year was a combination of collaborating with two different neighborhoods that were very sensitive to how these 16 homes were going to approach their houses. That is how we ended up with that 5 11 combo and we tasked Studio S Squared and said, this is a little bit different. Here is your tentative map and those are the lines, don’t color outside from them and don’t try to maneuver them. Maybe we can move a tree or two but you really need to respect this to its greatest degree so, at this juncture, that’s really what we are hoping that ARB will see that through. Eugene is going to take you through all the changes between February and now. Thank you so much. Mr. Eugene Sakai: Thanks, Ted; Eugene Sakai, Studio S Squared Architecture. I want to thank, first of all, Sheldon, for working closely with me and my firm and helping to distil the ARB’s comments from the last hearing. As we went through in detail and looked at them with respect to each unit, we found that they were very sound comments and ultimately walked away with a profound appreciation for our thoughts from last time. With 16 individual designs to through, I am going to have a hard time covering all the changes to the respective units in this approximately 6 or 7 minutes that I have got left. I will race City of Palo Alto Page 3 through as many as I can and I’ll try to highlight kind of the overview of the changes and Sheldon touched on some of those earlier. Basically, what we tried to take was an approach of an overall simplification. Simplification in roof lines, simplification in color pallets, simplification in materials, window forms, even trim details, railings, going – really drilling down to the level of detail that I think your comments warranted. We also tried to eliminate, as I mentioned, stone, which we had probably a little bit of an overabundance of. I mentioned color changes and window changes. There was a comment from the community regarding rooftop views and what they would see from their units looking down onto the project, which we hadn’t really carefully considered. So, where we do have low sloped roofs with basically a single plan membrane, those will now be covered with decorative river rock or gravel. Basically, I did touch on the railings earlier so as I mentioned, I will try to get through as many of these units as I can. I think as you will see, there is kind of a commonality to these changes. In these slides, basically the top image represents what we presented back to you in February and the lower image is what we are presenting to you today. Just in bullet point fashion – you will see these in common on many of these units but we had siding running in different directions. We’ve opted to make that uniform across all units so basically a clear hard western red cedar vertical wood siding. Where we had bold white linear forms, we’ve opted to either remove those or where they ‘ve remained, change them to more subdued color. In a lot of case, we haven’t completely eliminated the decorative stone but we have toned it down and changed a lot of that either wood or stucco. A lot of the stone fencing has gone to a much more similar wood fence detail. Metal railings, we have unified those to two different types so more of a cable railing look for the contemporary style homes and then a more of a raw iron look for the more traditional homes. Then in terms of form, just beyond sort of detail changes, we’ve attempted to change roof lines in certain cases. In this particular case, reducing the scale of the front elevation along Maybell by actually reducing plate height and sort of changings some of the forms in the roof lines. So, I think you can see on the lower image how much less massive the front elevation looks for this particular unit. On the back side – the front elevation looks for this particular unit. On the back side, again, the vertical wood siding change color, stone to stucco, fencing, railings, etc. One thing that I did want to touch on, which was a comment that Commissioner Baltay had was with regard to our rear covered patios and the need for them and the use for them and how important they were to the design. We actually opted to not really modify these designs that significantly because we do feel that this is a – it’s a true amenity and something that gets highly used in pretty much all of the custom home designs that we do for individual homeowners. It’s a common area that essentially is an extension of the indoor living space. Typically, these are spaces that have lights and in some cases, speaker and heaters and they are basically – the intent is that these are outdoor rooms that really can be used three and a half seasons of the year. We’ve added some patio furniture just to kind of give you a representation of the type of scale of these spaces and how they might actually serve for both dining and seating and possibly even future outdoor kitchens and the like. This is a – it’s a representative traditional style house and some of the changes here are most significantly we reoriented the garage. On the tentative map, which we were given, there was sort of a side entry garage which raised concerns at the last meeting. We’ve redesigned this unit to have a front facing garage, which is in keeping with all of the other units on the project, along with an uncovered parking space immediately adjacent. That resulted in some form changes as well. Then the backside here, one of the comments about the Spanish style house was the desperateness in arched topped windows and flat top windows so we basically have unified the window treatments pretty much throughout all these traditional style homes and in most cases, add some decorative trim. This is unit three or lot three is a pretty good example of where we’ve attempted to soften the roof lines. There was a concern I think, largely by the community that the project was overly contemporary so where we felt warranted, we’ve modified roof lines to soften sheds. As you can see on the top left there, there was an upward shed which we’ve since toned down to reduce the mass and scale. Then sort of a flat roof porch element which we’ve modified to basically a sloping, more traditional style porch roof but overall, we’ve kept the contemporary feel of the design. I am kind of race through here. Similar changes in the back. I am really going to start to speed up now. Vice Chair Kim: You’ve got a minute. Mr. Sakai: Ok. I guess I am going to conclude and I think you should have this presentation and I am not going to belabor you with a more detailed laundry list of changes but the first three or four units that I City of Palo Alto Page 4 presented do represent kind of the tenure of the overall second look that we’ve taken of the design. We did take your comments to heart. We felt they were well founded and judicious and so I hope that you will see these changes in the same positive light that we do. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. I don’t have any speaker cards for this particular project so I am going to bring it back to the Board for questions. Board Member Baltay: I have a list of questions, is that ok? Chair Lew: Yes. Board Member Baltay: For Staff to start with, please. I noticed that a number of the basement extend beyond the footprint of the building above. For example, house number ten and I wonder if that’s – I think we spoke about this last time but I am concerned. I do a lot of residential design in Palo Alto and this is a rule that is consistently enforced very tightly. I am finding here that it does not seem to be the something. If you look at number ten in front of the garage, the basement seems to extend 4 or 5-feet further below the driveway under the garage doors. Mr. Ah Sing: What sheet is that in the plan set? Board Member Baltay: Well, let’s see. Vice Chair Kim: A-10.1. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, 10.1 and I have marked it out here. Mr. Ah Sing: Right, so I believe there is a completing the square and that’s what the City allows. Board Member Baltay: Well, I am aware of that but completing the square is generally considered a small thing. A couple of feet here and there but this is a space approximately 16 by 5, which is not completing the square. It’s adding to the size of that basement. This is something that I brought up last time. I remember it quite clearly speaking to you guys about this and every one of these houses, mark one, has this type of situation in it. That’s just a question, is this something that you looked at or where do we stand with that? Question number two, I notice a number of these covered patios seem to extend into the backyard setbacks. I am aware that there is some exception allowing some projection into the backyard setbacks across some percentage of the width of the lots. I’d like to ask if you’ve actually considered that or are these not? For example, house number 14, so I guess probably sheet A-14.1, seems to have both the covered porch goes into that side or that backyard setback and then there is another covered canopy area that also seems to be within the setback. Again, the question to Staff is have we looked at this? Is this something that is allowed and I am just missing it? Mr. Ah Sing: We did look at the setbacks for each of the lots and the zoning districts and so we did ensure that they complied. Board Member Baltay: These covered patios in the back would be required to be in the setbacks of the building envelope, wouldn’t they? They are fairly large elements of the house. Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, let me look up the standard and I can site that for you. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I don’t want to put you on the spot now but I am just saying that I noticed that. The third question is to the applicant, in your set of general notes on sheet A-0.2, you allude to we provided a second story site plan sheet showing 45-degree view lines from balconies and windows etc. I don’t see that in the package. Am I missing it again? There is a lot of pages here, I understand. Where is the drawing that shows the privacy site lines that you are talking about here? That was a concern of ours last time. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Sakai: I can’t speak to what you have in front of you but I know that I have the full PDF of the assembled set here in front of me and there is that sheet. I am not sure the number right now but I was looking at is earlier. Chair Lew: A-0.5B, right? Is the site plan (inaudible)? Mr. Sakai: It’s earlier in the set. It’s one of the first few sheets and it’s basically an upper – it’s a second- floor site plan showing second floors of all the lots and the proper orientation with 45-degree lines from each second-floor window that has a lower sill. Then that same site plan also shows privacy planting as designed by our landscape architect who is here, if you would like to ask him a question. Board Member Baltay: Ok, thank you. The third question is alongside of the private street, on the right as you walk in, I see what looks to be like a sidewalk. Am I reading that correctly? That is a nice amenity but that’s on private property though. Is there some easement dedicated or how does that partially done? Is it just sorting of putting it out there for people to walk on regardless? It seems to me on the right-hand side of the private road, all the way along to the back, there’s a 4-foot sidewalk or something. The same thing applies to – as I dive into this, there seems to be a bunch of street lights shown. Am I right on that again? That you have street lights proposed? Mr. O’Hanlon: Regarding the sidewalk, that was in the tentative map. It’s meant – it is an amenity for all the homes to use. It was Public Works that requested that we have a pedestrian access on one – at least one-half of the private street. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I think it makes sense to have it there. The question really is, which side of the property line is that sidewalk on? Mr. O’Hanlon: That is on the lots so that will be an easement. Board Member Baltay: So, there will be an easement for that? Mr. O’Hanlon: Yes. Board Member Baltay: Is that part of the tentative map situation? The same question applies to the street lights that you proposed. As I noticed, there are a number of street lights throughout. It seemed like a good idea and again, are the street lights on private property or on the roadway property? How is your plan to deal with that from a legal point? Mr. O’Hanlon: There will be a CCNR that will operate these common areas on behalf of all the homeowners to maintain the sidewalks and the street lights. Board Member Baltay: The sidewalk will be a common area? Mr. O’Hanlon: Yes. Board Member Baltay: Ok, thank you. Ok, that’s my questions. Thank you. Chair Lew: Any other questions? No? Sheldon, did you want to follow up on the – on Peter’s question? Mr. Ah Sing: Right so the code does allow for projections into setbacks – required setbacks and there are certain conditions that they have to meet. For instance, canopies and patio covers may be located in a residential district in a required read yard or a portion of the interior side yard, which is more than 75- feet from the street. Any canopy or patio covers shall not be more than 12-feet in height and in the section, they specifically do call out the heights there. The canopy or building – or patio cover shall be included in accommodation for building coverage. So, we believe that it does meet the criteria set in the (inaudible). City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Baltay: Great, thank you. Chair Lew: Ok, who wants to go first? Peter, did you want to go first? Peter, we are all voting for you to go first. Board Member Baltay: Ok, ok, well, I am sorry but I really do have a couple of issues with this project still and I cannot make the findings to approve it today. Rather than drag everybody through the detailed stuff I had done, I want to see what the rest of the Board thinks, if that’s ok with the Chair before I outline everything? Let me put my comments into a couple of issues. I have an issue with the parking and the driveway situation. In detail, on lot number six, because of the oak street trees, you are forced to do quite a bit of maneuvering to get into that garage and I find that the parking just doesn’t work. So, if you look at sheet – where is it that I had seen – well, anyone of the colored site plans, A-0.5A, lot six has a large oak tree basically in front of the garage there and so it requires fairly careful driving to get into that parking places but then to get out is even much more tricky. Again, I know we spoke about this at the last hearing and the solution honestly is to design that building differently so the garages are more aligned with the street trees or to modify – petition to remove the tree. I am afraid that I don’t find it’s been addressed and one of the findings that we have to make is that the site and design are functional. I don’t think this is functional yet. My other concern has to do with the width of the street and the fact that I don’t believe there’s really that much room on the side of the street for additional parking for visitors, guests, things like that. I acknowledge that the tentative map is set and I am no way suggesting that you should be required to change the tentative map. What I am hopeful to see is some sort of just showing off what the design of the street really is; the curbs and things like that. If you can’t have some pull outs or some dedicated spaces that would at a minimum level give a visitor, a guest, a delivery or an Uber drop off a place to just pull to the side where they don’t block the traffic. What I am afraid of is that otherwise, you create really what is a dangerous situation in that people will just start parking out there. The family with five cars or the kids visiting from – my family, the kids had friends from college and there were six cars on our property. It just doesn’t fit and what they will do is a park in the street anyway. It’s 26-feet wide and that’s just enough to do that but then really, what they are doing is impeding the fire safety access. In the event of an emergency, all of sudden there is not enough room and I find that it just needs to be thought through a little more carefully. I don’t want to be constituents saying that I think you need to change your tentative map or reverse all these approvals you had but I am hopeful that you can just show us the design of the road itself and find some way to get these extra spaces. I was asking the questions about the sidewalk and the street lights to point out that it is possible to have some public amenity space type spaces on the private property, which is what one of these pullouts or parking things might be that allow this type of use. I’m – we’re tasked, on the Architectural Review Board, not to approve the tentative map but to make a certain series of findings. One of them, finding number four, is the project is functional for its intended use and I am afraid that this type of a hammerhead, cul-de-sac driveway street thing with ten houses on it, without a provision for just a person who is not going to park in your driveway to stop their car, is not functional. I did go through – the applicant sent out an email addressing exactly this question and at first, I was very hopeful. They pointed out a number of other subdivisions on other streets like this, where they said this was not required and that felt that it would be really great because that would prove that the City excepts these kinds of things. In every case, the right-of-way was between 40 and 60-feet. I’ll pass to my colleagues a photo I took off of Google on the Internet showing one of the streets, the narrowest one, with a car parked on the side of it and you can still see that because it’s a wider road, there is provision a fire truck still can get passed. It’s still a safe, functional situation. Unfortunately, what we have here is much tighter street and so it needs to be designed more carefully. I am not saying you have to redo the map. I am not saying you have to change the size of the properties but if you could just please address the issue that the way it is now, people will park improperly and it will become unsafe. That’s my big issue on the parking and the cars and stuff. I acknowledge that you’ve made some great changes to the other driveways and street parking and that’s much appreciated. I think it really – everything else works quite well. I am just left – my second comment is really just that I called it out of context and I went back to the neighborhood again yesterday and I’ve really given this a lot of soul searching. What we are seeing is 16 houses designed to the absolute maximum allowed by the zoning code, in a neighborhood that’s really City of Palo Alto Page 7 very modest, not designed to the maximum residential use. The houses are what I call sort of light residential and they are not bulked up. As I have gone through your designs, again I design these kinds of houses a lot, you are just pulling every trick in the book that’s allowed on the FAR. The bay windows, the second story sort of over the staircase where it’s only 15-feet so it doesn’t count twice, stretching the basements underneath the footprint as far as you can push it and that’s fine. Those are the codes and we all follow it but we’re tasked to review three or more houses at once on the Architecture Board. We are not the individual review here and the reason we are tasked to do that is because when you have a multitude of houses all doing this at once, it has a bigger effect on the community, on the neighborhood, on the context. That’s where I’m just saying to my fellow Board Members that this is 16 houses, every one of which is to the absolute maximum and collectively. Even – not just the houses but the design elements. These cover patios in the back also serve to just make them look bigger and heavier, taller, larger and I just find myself uncomfortable with that. It’s just a little bit too much, probably a lot too much. Especially in this neighborhood of much lower level of development and I think a lot of it can be mitigated with careful design. I appreciate the work you have done to step towards it. It’s very helpful to have detailed floor plans for each house. Nonetheless, when you have 10-foot and 9-foot or 10-foot and 10-foot plates, in places they are 12-foot plates, large non-functional porches in places, large canopies in the back-covering patios, that’s just a little bit too much for my taste. The last comment and I don’t want to be labored right now but I did go through every single house design and I could pick out four or five things on each one that I feel could use further revision. Basically, with the goal of mitigating the effect of building to the maximum FAR. I don’t want to drag us through that unless there is some desire on the Board to continue this and look at that more. So, with that, I’ll leave my comments to my colleagues. Thank you. Chair Lew: We can do two rounds if you want to circle back to – if that’s where we end up. Board Member Baltay: Let’s see what everyone else thinks first. Chair Lew: Ok, Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Thank you for addressing a lot of our comments and making these revisions. I think having the – there was a lot of paper but I think it was worth it in this case and I appreciated the level of detail that you are showing this time around. I think from an overall perspective, as a unified development, I think it’s at a level where I feel fairly comfortable with it. On some level, I agree with Board Member Baltay’s comments that maybe they are a little bit too maxed out but you know, I think we’re kind of setting a president here. Especially in a time where that’s what people are doing. If you are buying a lot and you have the money to develop it, I mean who doesn’t want to max it out. Is that a good thing for the City, I don’t know but it’s what people are doing and I don’t see too much that we can do about that. Again, from an overall perspective, I am appreciative of all these changes. Especially the unification of materials and it just looks like a much cleaner development that’s much more unified and has had that additional round of refinements. When I look at each unit individually, there are little concerns here and there that I think hopefully can be taken care of at the next building and planning levels as you are going through building permit. Maybe just to point out one or two of them. I notice that on the type one units, that on the second floor where you have the master bedroom and bathrooms. I think you only have one master bedroom window and it’s obscured. I mean, that just seems a little odd to me that you only have this one window for the master bedroom and as you walk into that space, you’ve got a frosted glass window. I can understand that maybe there was a privacy concern. I was looking at the site plan trying to match things up but to me, it seems like those areas are where you are facing the rear of the property and so I don’t know that you necessarily have to have those obscured. I don’t know if it was a comment that was made previously by us but that’s just something that I would take another look at. Then also, just some more comments on my end that don’t necessarily stop me from liking the overall project and having the confidence to recommend approval. I am still not sure that these diagonal columns fit into the language that you have going on some of the unit types. I am not real big fan of those but other than that, some other smaller comments are that I noticed that there are a couple basements. I think like on lot five – I don’t know if that’s a particular unit type but on lot five I was looking at the basement plan and there’s a bedroom that you haven’t called a bedroom because City of Palo Alto Page 8 there’s no natural light but it’s obviously a bedroom because it’s got a closet and a bathroom inside the bedroom. Those are things where I am thinking is that – I don’t know. Again, those are the kind of smaller, looking at every unit type of thing but from an overall standpoint, I am appreciative of the changes that you’ve made. I think I feel good enough that I could recommend approval of the project. I feel like I forgot to mention something but I noticed that a couple of the keynotes on the elevations were off. I think as you were updating the background elevations some of those keynote trackers just kind of got miss placed. Maybe if we had a key map of where the unit is in relation to the whole site plan on the floor plans, that could be a little bit of a time saver instead of having us flip back and forth all the time. Overall, I think the changes actually go a long way and I am happy that you were able to solve a lot of the concerns that we had. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Baltay’s comments on lot number six and that’s not functionally parked. I read Lee Prince’s letters to Council for the applicant on the issue of parking. I must say that it’s distressing to think oh, this is what we do everywhere and then discover from Commissioner’s Baltay’s work that in fact, we only have done this on 40 and 60-foot right-of-way’s. The problem we have here is that we have a skinny road, we have a number of houses loading from it, it’s on Clemo Avenue so the parking is parking for the park across the street. This is highly desirable public parking and instead -- again, it’s the same problem we had without high-intensity development. It doesn’t deal with the drop off issue. It doesn’t deal with the fact that vehicles come up and they need to be there temporarily. It’s not quite so bad with a ride service because there is somebody in the vehicle but this does not seem to meet our standards for approving a project. What I can’t tell is whether the finding we ought to be making -- assuming you share my view that it doesn’t work, is that it doesn’t work but the City has tied its own hands. Therefore, we must expect this condition or whether we have the power to ask that it be improved. So, I need guidance from Staff on that. I am not going to take our legal advice from Council for the developer. I understand incidentally of course, about the nature of a final map and a tentative map and easements versus other thing but there is a homeowner’s association. They do have a mechanism for which to address issues. Mr. Lait: So, it’s true that we cannot require changes to the map at this point. Board Member Furth: Right, no debate on that topic. Mr. Lait: Ok, and the other item that is before is the discretionary entitlement and the 16 homes and subject to the ARB findings. So, these approvals of one does not necessarily ensure approval of the other. You need to review this project to the findings that are before you. Board Member Furth: But I’m – what I am asking Jonathan is if it is in fact beyond our discretion as the applicant argues to ask for any or to require a better parking situation, is that the City’s Attorney’s Office opinion as well? Mr. Lait: Right so we don’t believe that – I guess I would phrase it a different way. I probably would need to confer this again with legal but I don’t believe that we can require the -- can you pull – I need the findings for the – I just want to pull up the findings for the ARB for a minute. I would answer your question this way, you’ve got finding number four and if you believe that the design does not meet that objective, then you would make arguments as to why it is not consistent with that finding. Board Member Furth: Ok, I don’t want to get us in trouble but I realize we merely recommend. I have no other comments. Chair Lew: I don’t have a lot to say on this particular project. I did have a question for you, do the houses have air conditions and have you shown the condenser locations on the site plan? I was looking for them but I couldn’t find – I could not find that information. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Mr. Sakai: I don’t think they are on the site plan just because of scale but we have shown them on the floor plans. For example, I’ve got lot six, A-6.1 open right now if you look at the ground floor plan of that, you will see two AC units tucked in right adjacent to the bedroom and bath four. That should be representative for all units unless we’ve overlooked that. Chair Lew: Ok, good so they are typically in a corner out of the setback. Mr. Sakai: Right, yeah, out of a setback. Chair Lew: Great. Thank you for that. Ok, so I guess my take on the project is that I don’t like the skinny street with a hammer head. I think I am respectful of the long process that this has gone through so I guess my take on it would be to recommend approval of the project but I really – yeah, I just don’t – I don’t like the design at all. On the architecture, I think I agree with Board Member Baltay and Furth about the back-up from unit six. It was brought up – lot six – it was brought up before and its doesn’t seem like it’s been addressed. With regard to all the other units, as I was flipping through them and I didn’t look at them very carefully but I would guess that I saw little things on all of the building. I guess at this point in the process, I was thinking that they were all approvable or they were things that could be resolved without a lot of effort and it wouldn’t necessarily have to come back to the full Board for review. I guess, Peter, I would say that lot six is a no, in my mind unless the applicant has an argument for how the backup can work. Then if you want to on the other items, I think we have time. We are a little ahead of schedule if you want to go through your items. I would be interested if the Board thinks they have to come back for a full review or if it could be done at a subcommittee level. Why don’t you give us an example of one or two and then we can see? Board Member Baltay: Let me point out the one thing that I found most disturbing. It was on – I believe it’s building number five. Chair Lew: (Inaudible) type five. Board Member Baltay: Type five, if you look at sheet A-5.2 and look at front elevation, the middle on the top there. It shows a vertical element with vertical siding and a gabled roof over it. If you look at the perspective on the lower left, that wall on the left-hand side of that is the same wall. Chair Lew: Right. I think we talked about this at the last meeting. Board Member Baltay: To me, that is just an example of whereas I’ve gone through this, it’s just not carefully done. I think I would feel embarrassed to have my friends say gee, you’re on the Architecture Board and you approved this. Chair Lew: And it’s showing – they are showing a shadow as if it were 3-dimentional. Board Member Baltay: As I have gone through the houses, about half of them have large covered balconies in the back that are not carefully integrated into the design. Again, it is not for us to say you can or can’t have certain architectural features. It is within the parameters of the zoning code to do these things as Sheldon explained but they still need to be well designed into the building itself. Another example would be, I think it… (crosstalk) Mr. Lait: (Inaudible) is aligned with the perspective. Board Member Baltay: … was building number nine. Indulge me further Board Members, drawing A-9.2, on that sheet in the lower left-hand side shows a perspective view of what is the front of this house. This is the part that faces the street, you have on the second floor there a blank vertical wall of wood siding that, as best I can tell is an 11-feet tall and you have two narrow slit windows. Looking between it carefully, if you really dive in, that little square is the vent from the gas fireplace. That’s the family room behind it there. This is facing the front of the house and then the front door is a solid glazed door off that porch. It’s really not the front of a house. It’s too tall, it’s out of scale and the windows don’t really work City of Palo Alto Page 10 to the function inside it. If you look at the next page, A-9.3, that perspective shows you how the building looks in the back or how the neighbors see it. It’s rather tall, it’s rather massive. This goes to my comment of that it’s one thing to design to the zoning maximum. As Kyu said, that’s what everybody seems to be doing and it’s not for us to judge that. That is what the zoning code allows. I put it to the Board, however, the reason we are looking at this is not because we are looking at any one house. The Council -- the law charges us to look at developments with more than three. The reason being is that there’s a magnification effect. When you have three -- when you have 16 houses designed like house nine here to the maximum in every respect, it is incumbent upon us to do something about it. To say wait, this is too much. That’s what I am saying here. Shall I keep picking more, Alex? Chair Lew: Can we – let’s – can we – I wanted to chime in a little bit on the maxed-out nature comment. Board Member Baltay: Let me point out one other thing that was really bugging me and this is more of an aesthetic thing. A number of these houses have paired, fairly large chimneys or even single chimneys. Look at house 12 on sheet A-12.2, the upper right-hand corner elevation shows what looks like a fairly elegant tall chimney. It measures on the plan if I remember 4-feet by 5-feet or something. There’s no chimney inside that. There is nothing there what so ever. It’s stacked on top of, I think it was the living room below. I would say that about a third of these buildings have single or double chimneys. A fairly large mass that is in no way functional chimneys. The chimneys on these are all simple gas vents going out the side. That’s sort of what you see on Safeway on the corner as you go down El Camino. These large decorative clock tower type elements. It’s really not appropriate here, it’s too much. Again, it’s just another way to broaden your shoulders and through you weight around. This community is not one that will readily accept that. It just doesn’t fit. Chair Lew: My take actually on the massing was that they had a fairly strong one-story element on many of the houses and there are large elements – there are some large shed roofs that I think are a little bit bigger than I would like typically. I think that they’ve tried to make a horizontal element – design element through many of the houses and I would say that the neighborhood is mixed. There are one-story, mid- century houses and then large two-story Mediterranean-style house and it’s pretty eclectic. That is where I am on this and I think on the chimneys, I mean is it not better to have a decorative chimney than it is to have an ugly gas vent poking out through the roof? I mean I think it’s better to hide it, no? I think I understand you're – if you go to Green Acres Two, where all the houses are fairly uninformed with hip roofs, like there I get it. Here I think, this is (inaudible)(crosstalk). Board Member Baltay: Look at sheet A-2.3, that’s a good example of the chimneys I am referring too. Chair Lew: Yeah, I have no comment on that. Does anybody else have a – any other Board Members have an objection? Board Member Furth: I can – I am mostly concerned about the houses that front on Maybell and Clemo. To a certain extent, if the applicant wants to build houses that are very broad shouldered, in your face or as big as they could possibly be that look at each other, I think that’s their affair. They’re not diminishing their neighbors. This is what they want to create and it’s fairly self-contained. I do find the idea of overly large ornamental chimneys and all the other things going on in the on lot two, not particularly compatible with the neighborhood and not high-quality design. This is – those are the houses that most concerns me and those are the houses which still seem to me to be overdone and over barring, those are not very technical terms, I realize. They are also disrespectful of their context and I –because the applicant has already heard us say these things, I don’t know how to proceed. I appreciate that this has been a long and difficult struggle and I appreciate that some of the things that I found most distressing are gone but I mean, if I look at this streetscape and I look at – I am looking at sheet A-06 and I look at lot two. What? These are not manner houses, what are we doing with double chimneys? Board Member Baltay: I’d like to remind the Board that the first time we had this project, we did not have these drawings. We had a series of floor plans and elevations that were sort of typical for the whole thing. I felt this is the first time we could really look at all this so I am extremely appreciative of the City of Palo Alto Page 11 changes that were made based on the very generic feedback we gave; too many materials and simplify the forms. At the same time, please understand that this is the first time we’ve actually seen the design of the houses. I do applaud you for the quality of the presentation. These are well-presented designs and the information is here now but I remind my fellow Board Members that this is the first time we’ve actually seen these. Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, I think maybe just to clarify my previous comments. I definitely think you’re headed in the right direction. I think the changes you made again, are exceptional. I think some of these concerns that have been mentioned are, to me, I think they’re getting to be significant enough where I don’t think reviewing them just by the subcommittee would be fair to the Board as a whole. I am actually leaning on seeing if you would be up for coming back on a date certain perhaps, with some additional modifications that appease our concerns. Does that sound reasonable, Chair Lew? Chair Lew: Ok, then I think if – that sounds like the – ok, I think that if it’s going to be continued, then I think we should be fairly clear and very specific and we should just take the time and do it and not drag this out more than it has to in terms of like three or more hearings. Let’s just get it – let’s just address all of them and – now. Let’s go – if you want to go through unit by unit, let’s do it. Board Member Furth: Frontage by frontage? Mr. Lait: It the process question… Chair Lew: Yes. Mr. Lait: …or option. The – one way to maybe do this is that we know that the comment expressed by a single Board Member is shared by the rest of the Board is to maybe start off with a motion. It sounds like this is heading towards continuation so you might want to say – we might want to have somebody make a motion and have that be seconded if for continuation. Then thereafter, we can go through a series of friendly amendments if it’s agreed by the maker and the seconder to add it because, at that point, we have a sense that a majority of the voting Members would be in general supportive. You obviously have the right to change your mind later but that might be a way to sort of get a clear direction as far as what’s going on. So, if there is an issue that came up with lot six parking, yeah, let’s fix that. If there is an issue about something else but you didn’t get the support, then we can maybe move onto the next item. Chair Lew: Let’s do it that way because that way it’s clear and it’s not – because otherwise, we’ll get questions later like did you want it this way or that way or whatever. Wynne? Board Member Furth: Would this motion be a movement to – moving it to continue to either a date certain or a date uncertain, depending on how you direct this, with a request that the applicant makes further revisions to address the following concerns. Is that the format? Well, so I make – is it date certain or uncertain? Mr. Lait: Well, I think… Board Member Furth: You don’t know yet. Mr. Lait: Yeah, I mean I think that’s in part going to be… Board Member Furth: I’ll say date uncertain at this point… (crosstalk) Mr. Lait: Right, (inaudible)… Board Member Furth: … and we can change that later. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mr. Lait: … maybe if when the applicant hears the list, they can say yeah, we can turn this around in 4- weeks’ time or something like that. (inaudible) (crosstalk) Board Member Furth: Ok. So, what I previously said and the first item one would be for revision… Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, is this your motion? MOTION Board Member Furth: Yeah, only I am not good at saying it the second time. Did you get – Ok. Move that this item be continued to a date uncertain with a request that the applicant propose revisions to the submission to address the following issues. Item number one is a revision of the driveway and parking access on lot six to create a safer and more functional parking situation. Item number two is the addition of off-street, short term parking on the private road if the City’s Attorney advises that such request can be made. Mr. Lait: Can I make a request… Board Member Furth: Sure. Mr. Lait: ...or a suggestion? Can we start with just the motion to continue and then do the individual amendments? Board Member Furth: Well, I will – alright. Mr. Lait: Just – that way – because I don’t know where the rest of the Board is on the parking issue. It may be that you have agreement but… Board Member Furth: Right, good point. (inaudible) Mr. Lait: I think, what you had moved was a continuation of the project. Board Member Furth: Alright, to a date uncertain so I need a second. Board Member Baltay: I’ll second that. Mr. Lait: Ok, and then we can begin with a series of friendly amendments. Board Member Furth: Well, I can’t (inaudible) the motion. AMENDMENT #1 Board Member Baltay: I make the first amendment is that the applicant works on lot number six to make the parking and driveway situation safer and more functional. Board Member Furth: I accept that. AMENDMENT #2 Board Member Baltay: Well, let’s address the – amendment number two is the issue of – how do I phrase this? Request that the applicant demonstrates a minimum of four – I don’t want to use the word parking places but four places where a vehicle could pull out of the way of emergency vehicles on the public roadway. Board Member Furth: It’s the private road, right? City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Baltay: Private roadway to allow for temporary parking of vehicles. Chime in people, I don’t know how to quite put this but that’s what I think we need to do. I want to be careful that we are not asking for them to make easements or change the tentative map. We just want to see more functional parking situations. Board Member Furth: I guess one of the questions is how do the rest of you feel? Mr. Lait: I don’t mean to be engaging in your deliberation but… Board Member Baltay: Please do, please do. Mr. Lait: … it might be that we treat that one as an unfriendly amendment just for the process of the procedure. I know the maker and the seconder are probably in agreement on that issue but if we treat it as an unfriendly amendment, then we have a vote on that single issue before we move on to the next item. Board Member Furth: Ok, I won’t accept it. Mr. Lait: Ok, it’s been unexcepted. Board Member Furth: So, it’s unfriendly. Mr. Lait: So, Chair, at this point you have a … Chair Lew: We can vote – we’re going to vote on this amendment. Mr. Lait: So, we actually – before – I’m sorry to be so clumsy about this but I just want to make sure we get the process right. So, we have a motion – a request for a friendly amendment. The amendment has been rejected so now Board Member Baltay is saying that there is still this interest in having this four parking spaces available on site. Chair Lew: He needs a second, right? Mr. Lait: He would need a second from either the Chair or the Vice Chair so that we can vote on it. That seconding doesn’t commit you to voting in the affirmative, it just prevents the opportunity for a vote. Chair Lew: Ah, ok. Mr. Lait: Or Commissioner or… Board Member Furth: Or we could just discuss it. Board Member Furth: Or Board Member Furth can second it and – but as an unfriendly just for the purpose of voting. Board Member Furth: Well, leaving aside procedural niceties for a minute, I am interested in knowing how my colleagues who haven’t addressed this use feel about this issue. Board Member Baltay: Alex and Kyu, where do we stand? Vice Chair Kim: I am not so – I am not as concerned about the parking on the private street. Mr. Lait: I’ll tell you from a – my conversations with the City’s Attorney’s Office, the only way to achieve this is through some kind of a – well, there are two ways. One is a modification to the map, which we City of Palo Alto Page 14 decided is not feasible. The other is thru some kind of a lease or an easement that would be available to the association or guests of the association are – in our conversations internally about that, is that the easements have been identified on the parcel map. So, we feel like adding an easement at this point is not an ideal situation and not something that we, from a Staff level, would support. The parking layout as we see it is something that we’re sort of bound to and is consistent with the code. Board Member Baltay: Is it true that the easements for the streetlights and sidewalks are actually on the parcel maps? Those have been thought through? Mr. Lait: I actually – we have to pull up the… Board Member Baltay: Because I… Mr. Lait: …plans for that to know. I don’t know if you have that information. Board Member Baltay: I guess frankly, I would suspect they are not. I’ve just gone through a similar subdivision and a lot of that kind of stuff is left to the end and that’s where I feel -- this is similar to a sidewalk, that is what we are asking for and it ought to be treated that way. Board Member Furth: I am going to suggest that we put this one aside till we finish addressing our other issues and then treat it as a separate matter. Board Member Baltay: How does a tie vote stand, Jonathan, with us? Board Member Furth: It’s a no. Board Member Baltay: A tie vote is a no? Mr. Lait: Tie vote is a technical denial on that issue or technical no, yeah. Board Member Furth: My comment on this is that I know it’s not ideal to be using easements but it’s not ideal to have this design and I don’t know if you are moving towards telling me it’s not legally possible or not. Mr. Lait: I guess I can be a little more affirmative on that. Conversations with our legal office has advised against it so that’s as far as I can articulate that, I think at this point. Board Member Baltay: Let me move on… Chair Lew: Why don’t we just – so, nobody has seconded the unfriendly amendment so at the moment we’re not – (crosstalk)… Mr. Lait: (Inaudible)… Chair Lew: … at the moment we’re not even (inaudible). Mr. Lait: …revisit it at the end and – so you don’t lose that if you want. AMENDMENT #3 Board Member Baltay: Let me request an amendment for house number one and I’ll just work through these. On house number one, I think I’d like to see three things get changed. One is that on the second floor, the two wood-clad elements should not be the same height as the rest of the building. Make them a little bit lower and a little bit taller. Those are bay windows technically so they don’t count towards floor area. The second item is that the main window out looking over the street in the bay window again – this City of Palo Alto Page 15 is on sheet A-1.2, is really rather large and out of scale. Then lastly and probably most importantly is that the element that creates the front porch is out of scale and harmony with the rest of the horizontal grayish elements on the house and could use a little more design work. Board Member Furth: Peter, could you reframe that as the – you want a revision that does what? Board Member Baltay: Three things, on the second floor the two-wood clad bay window elements should not be the same height as the rest of the building. They are flush, the same and there should be more differentiation. The large window in the front is – looks too large is what I wrote down. Board Member Furth: Should be reduced in size? Board Member Baltay: Right and lastly, the element over the front porch – defining the front porch is too thin relative to the rest of the elements on the house. Board Member Furth: Ok, accepted. Board Member Baltay: That’s the kind of comments that I have as I went through this and I really would appreciate my colleagues telling me if they think it’s too much, then say so because I don’t want to go through this for the next half hour. Board Member Furth: With respect to lot number two, I can’t tell you what I think we should ask the applicant to do. I can tell you that my impression is that the house is overly large in appearance from the street. That the two chimney elements are out of character for the neighborhood and beyond that, I couldn’t go. Board Member Baltay: Let me understand, I just made a friendly amendment for house number one and she accepted it so that’s it’s, we’re just going to the next one. Mr. Lait: Yeah. Board Member Furth: That’s done. AMENDMENT #4 Board Member Baltay: So, should I make a friendly amendment for lot number two would be to remove the decorative chimney elements altogether and there are two horizontal window elements showing on the rear and labeled left side elevation so the right-side elevation on sheet A-2.3, which are out of character in proportion with the rest of the windows on the house. Board Member Furth: And that they are two small or too big? Board Member Baltay: They are just the wrong shape. Everything else is more vertical. Lastly, the front façade has effectively one 50-foot long eave line over the front porch and garage and there should be more modulation somehow to that. Board Member Furth: So, additional modulation in the front porch eave? Board Member Baltay: On the front first-floor elevation… Board Member Furth: Front first… Board Member Baltay: …first floor of the front elevation. Board Member Furth: Ok, is that clear enough Jonathan? City of Palo Alto Page 16 Mr. Lait: It’s helpful to have that restated. Board Member Furth: I understand the elements of this to be that the ornamental chimneys should be removed. I am starting from – I am looking at the front elevation. That the 50-foot long or the eave at the first-floor level along the front side of the building should be modulated so as not to present an undivided expanse. On the rear, as shown on sheet A-2.2? Is that, right? Is this the one with the improperly proportioned windows? Which elevation are we talking about? Board Member Baltay: I am looking at sheet… Mr. Lait: A-2.3. Board Member Baltay: …A-2.2, the elevation labeled front – no, I am sorry. A-2.3, drawing labeled rear elevation on the upper floor on the right-hand side there is a horizontal window. Then drawing labeled left side elevation on the main gabled element on that elevation, there is another horizontal window. Board Member Furth: Which is, in fact, a right elevation? Board Member Baltay: Which is, in fact, the right elevation, yeah, but that’s just a… Board Member Furth: The two horizontal, second-floor windows on the rear elevation and the incorrectly labeled right elevation on sheet 2.3 should be modified to be more consistent with the rest of the design? Board Member Baltay: Yeah. Board Member Furth: I accept it. AMENDMENT #5 Board Member Baltay: I then – I am going to skip house three unless anybody else sees something with that. I am looking at sheet A-3.2, then I make an amendment to have house number four modified to have the front elevation… Board Member Furth: This is sheet 4.3 again? Board Member Baltay: 4.2. Board Member Furth: 4.2. Board Member Baltay: … has a – the roof eave elements. One is a large horizontal white band and one is a sloping black band on the drawing and they just don’t seem well integrated. The roof eaves on the front elevation should be more carefully integrated. Chair Lew: This is between the first floor and the second floor? Board Member Baltay: Yes. Board Member Furth: That would be a modification to house number four, which would be redesigning the first-floor eave elements… Board Member Baltay: The second… Board Member Furth: …so that they are more integrated. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Baltay: Right and the second element was the second floor has what’s effectively a pair of shed roofs, where the lowest level – let’s see. That the shed roof on the lower – second floor be lowered. Vice Chair Kim: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: There are two shed roofs, right? You are saying you want them to match? Board Member Baltay: No, I just think they are two tall. Chair Lew: Both of them? Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I mean (inaudible). Chair Lew: I understand. No, I… Board Member Baltay: Those shed roofs start at a 9-foot plate height on the second floor and go up. I think they should start it at 8-foot plate height at the minimum. Board Member Furth: Ok, so the second part of this would be that the shed roofs on the second floor be lowered both as to their starting point and their finishing point basically, right? Board Member Baltay: I think they need to be a foot lower. Board Member Furth: Be lowered by at least a foot. I accept it. AMENDMENT #6 Board Member Baltay: Amendment on house number five that the elevation facing Maybell Avenue, which is best shown on the front elevation on sheet A-5.2, be modified so that the vertical element is actually projecting proud of the building or some other architectural modification. Board Member Furth: This is the (inaudible)… Board Member Baltay: The wide vertical element, yes. Board Member Furth: So, the white vertical element as shown on the front elevation on sheet A-5.2 be modified by establishing it at a different – what did you call that? You want it pushed out, right? Board Member Baltay: It needs to be pushed out by at least the depth of the roof eave above. Board Member Furth: Be moved forward by at least the depth of the roof eave above. Is that clear for Staff? I accept it. Mr. Lait: With the – I just – went on that, is that an architectural projection, that vertical element? Is that one that – is that floor area in there? Board Member Baltay: That is, unfortunately, floor area. It’s not a trivial change. Mr. Lait: Yeah, so I just don’t know if it could extend as far out maybe because of the setbacks. I would just have to take a look at that. Board Member Furth: Well, maybe you have to move the rest of the wall back. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I am afraid that’s really, unfortunately, a fairly challenging design thing to make that work. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Mr. Lait: Ok, so I – so this is good. This might be a moment where if there’s – I’m getting the sense and you don’t have to say yes or no on this but it sounds like some of these changes – maybe that the Board is supportive of these. If this is a more major change and some Board Members have a perspective about whether this should or shouldn’t happen, we might want to have a debate about it if it’s going to be an issue. If… Board Member Furth: I am assuming that everybody will chime in at this point if they don’t want us to go ahead. That’s the operating assumption I am using. Mr. Lait: If that’s the case, I might just suggest that this might be one where we want to make it an unfriendly amendment, that you might vote on. Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) colleague’s want? Chair Lew: Typically, in the past, the Board does not like – things like this that are coplanar, so it means either projecting it out or removing it and just integrating it into the rest of the building. So, it could go either way but not to try to have it both ways in the thickness of a piece of paper, right? Board Member Baltay: I have to say I am extremely uncomfortable doing this exercise. I think we’re trying hard to get you guys through the gate here and I really feel like we’ve said this already once, this is pretty basic architecture stuff so telling you how deep it has to be is very awkward. Board Member Furth: Is it –would it be ok to say –sorry, go ahead. Vice Chair Kim: I was just going to concur with Chair Lew that perhaps they can unify the material there and change the roof form instead of introducing that gable out of nowhere. If they just continue the gable facing Clemo all the way across, I think they can eliminate that roof and unify the material and make it work. Board Member Furth: So, make it a choice? Board Member Baltay: That would certainly be a good direction. It does speak to our earlier comments the last meeting about this being the corner of the entire development. We want this building to anchor and look good on that corner. Hopefully, they can come up with something that makes sense that way. Board Member Furth: Then you would at least want them to modify this elevation by removing –what do you call this thing? A two-story white gable element? Modifying it either by removing it or making it not coplanar? Does that work? Vice Chair Kim: I think that works. Board Member Baltay: Sure. Board Member Furth: Then I accept it. Board Member Baltay: That works. AMENDMENT #7 Board Member Baltay: Ok, amendment on house number six, the second story shed roof to be lowered by a foot, as seen in the perspective on sheet A-6.3. Secondly, the chimney element – no, let me just leave that alone. I don’t want to do that. Just the height of the shed roof on house number six. Unless somebody else has other ideas? City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Lew: Nobody seconded that yet. Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Kim: I am fine with that. Board Member Furth: Ok, I accept it. AMENDMENT #8 Board Member Baltay: Ok, an amendment on house number seven that the front chimney element be modified so that it’s not coplanar on the first floor with the siding on the front of the house. Board Member Furth: I accept that. Board Member Baltay: Secondly, that the window shapes be made more consistent; best seen on the front elevation on sheet A-7.2 where you have two large horizontal windows. Board Member Furth: I am sorry Peter. Are you saying that’s an example of what you should be doing or what you shouldn’t be doing? Board Member Baltay: You should not be. I’d like those two horizontal windows on the first floor of the front elevation on sheet A-7.2 should be modified to be more consistent with the proportions of the rest of the windows on the house. Board Member Furth: I agree they are (inaudible). Perhaps the rest (inaudible). Board Member Baltay: Lastly, the shed roof as seen on the front elevation on sheet A-7.2 should be modified so the ends of the roof are more consistent with the rest of the house. You have a shed ending on the left and a hip ending on the right. It’s best seen perhaps on the roof perspective drawing on the same sheet. Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) mess, isn’t it? Is there a consensus on that? Vice Chair Kim: That one is not quite as a big of an issue to me. Board Member Baltay: Ok, take that off. Take that off. Board Member Furth: Ok, so what’s left on that one? Oh, the windows, the fenestration? Board Member Baltay: The windows and the chimney element. Board Member Furth: Ok, so revise the fenestration on the front elevations so that that the windows are more internally coherent or something and what was the deal with the chimney? What was the second one? Board Member Baltay: I used Alex’s fancy term but it should not be coplanar on the first floor with the rest of the siding. Right now, it’s… Board Member Furth: That sounds good to me. I accept. AMENDMENT #9 Board Member Baltay: Amendment on house number eight, that the decorative chimneys be removed. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Vice Chair Kim: Well, I think only one of them is perhaps decorative. I mean I see the family room chimney extending up on the outside of the master bedroom and that’s a real chimney. Board Member Baltay: I don’t think so, Kyu. Unless there is a second-floor fireplace there. Vice Chair Kim: I am looking at A-8.1 if you look at the family room right next to those air conditioning condensers; there is a fireplace. Board Member Baltay: Right but that chimney is a couple feet in from that. Board Member Furth: Want to get guidance from the applicant? Board Member Baltay: The chimney on this house if you look at the floor plan A-8.1, the chimneys are essentially on top of the island in the kitchen and on top of the dining room table there; the sofa as best I can tell. Mr. Lait: Well, so… Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Mr. Lait: … the decorative chimneys shall be removed. If it’s not decorative then it doesn’t need to be removed, right? Is that what we are saying? Board Member Furth: Well, one of them we definitely want to have go or at least I do. Could we hear from the applicant as to whether they are decorative or real or what purpose they serve? Mr. Sakai: We use those for primarily hiding HV/AC… Chair Lew: Could you come up to the microphone just so that it gets – that we can get it on the transcript, please. Mr. Sakai: Where we have the tower roofs, we typically like to avoid penetrating them with pipes and flues and what not. So, we tell the plumbing contractor to sort of run the chimneys were possible to -- basically, a stacked vent, which is what those chimneys end up being. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: Ok, so you have seconded that? Board Member Furth: Well, now I am lost as to what the – I am sorry, I lost track. Where are we on this motion? Mr. Lait: This is dealing with lot eight. Board Member Furth: House number eight. Mr. Lait: The decorative chimneys shall be removed; that’s where we are. Board Member Baltay: I want to stand behind that. I think there are other ways to accomplish plumbing venting and these are just too big. Board Member Furth: Then I will accept that. AMENDMENT #10 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Baltay: House number nine, I’d like to amend that the second floor be reduced in height so that the plate height is closer to 8-feet than 11. Let’s say an 8-foot plate height as best seen on the right-side perspective elevation on sheet A-9.2. Secondly, that the windows in the family room be modified to be more appropriate for windows facing the street. Is that ok to say it that way? Board Member Furth: Does that mean larger? What does that mean? Vice Chair Kim: Windows in the family room? Board Member Furth: You mean the slit… Board Member Baltay: The slit windows. Board Member Furth: They don’t – I agree with you that they don’t seem consistent with single family residential but … Board Member Baltay: The windows be modified to be more consistent with residential design. Is that ok? Board Member Furth: Well, I think it’s helpful to say you had in mind larger if larger is what you had in mind? I’m not quite sure why – I don’t understand why they are the way they are. What are they trying to achieve? Board Member Baltay: You know, let’s just leave it off. Let’s ask them to reduce the height of the roof, that’s the real design element. Board Member Furth: I’ll accept that. Board Member Baltay: Unless somebody else – it was the height of that, that was the biggest issue. Board Member Furth: This is one of their interior lots, right? Or is it exterior? Board Member Baltay: This is an interior lot. This is way back in the depths of the hammer head. AMENDMENT #11 Board Member Furth: If they want slit windows, fine with me. So, if I could add to the motion a request that Staff obtain confirmation from the City Attorney that we may not require additional pull over or parking areas on the private road and if that confirmation is – if the City Attorney says that we may require additional pull over or parking areas on the private road, that we see a design that allows at least two. I am going to be ok with two. I can’t make a friendly amendment to my own motion. Board Member Baltay: We’re going to get to the parking in a second. Mr. Lait: You can if -- but I mean, the seconder would need too… AMENDMENT #12 Board Member Baltay: Ok, if I could amend on house number eleven… Mr. Lait: No changes on ten? Board Member Baltay: No changes on ten. On number eleven, three things, the decorative chimneys be removed. Two that the roof pitch of the front entry feature be made consistent with the roof pitch on the rest of the house. Thirdly that the bay window on the front entry on the second floor, on the right be City of Palo Alto Page 22 reduced in size to be more in keeping with the scale of the building. This is best seen on sheet A-11.2, on the front left perspective. Board Member Furth: So, that would be (inaudible)? Board Member Baltay: The bay window element is just too big, I think so I’d leave it to the architect to figure out – reduce the scale was the word I used. So, three things, the decorative chimneys, the bay window and then the roof pitch at the front really should match the roof pitch on the rest of the house. Board Member Furth: Accepted. Vice Chair Kim: Board Member Baltay, you skipped unit or lot ten but lot ten also has decorative chimneys. Board Member Baltay: Let me see that. It does. I guess I felt that it wasn’t rising to the level where these others do. I think of… Vice Chair Kim: That bothers me a lot. Board Member Furth: Ok, I’ll take a friendly motion from you. Board Member Baltay: So, speak up Kyu. I mean (inaudible). AMENDMENT #13 Vice Chair Kim: I would make a friendly amendment that we also eliminate the decorative chimneys on lot ten. Board Member Furth: I would accept that as the maker. So, Peter needs to accept it as the seconder. Board Member Baltay: Oh, I do, yeah. Thank you, Kyu. Board Member Furth: Did we just do eleven? Ok. AMENDMENT #14 Board Member Baltay: Ok, so amendment on house number twelve that the large decorative chimney be removed, best seen on the front elevation on sheet A-12.2. Then, secondly, I couldn’t actually figure this one out but there’s something about the roof forms on the second floor that have a combination of hips and gables that seem awkward. I guess I’d say that the roof forms on the second floor be made more consistent... Board Member Furth: Be simplified? Board Member Baltay: Just made more consistent. Board Member Furth: Ok. Board Member Baltay: As seen – best example is on the front elevation on sheet 12.2, where you can see one side is a pitch and the other is a shed roof but it’s not – I just couldn’t tell from that what you are really looking at because there is a whole bunch of roofs going on up there. Board Member Furth: So, does it go back – does it jigsaw back? I can’t quite figure out what’s happening. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Baltay: Or seen from the rear elevation on sheet 12.3, where you have a hipped roof on the right side and a gable end roof on the left side. I’d like to just leave it as to be made more consistent. Chair Lew: The perspective shows the roof better than the elevation. Board Member Baltay: It does. Chair Lew: Because from the front, you’re going to see two hipped roofs and the gable is in the back and in the elevation, it all sort of blurs together. Board Member Baltay: You know I – maybe we should just leave that off. I am not sure you can see it. That’s being too picky so on house number twelve, we are asking to remove the decorative chimney. Board Member Furth: So, I have a question, which is about the size of the bay window the left. It looks to me like it takes up the entire wall which I don’t think bay windows are supposed to do. Am I wrong? Is that really just fine? Board Member Baltay: On this front elevation? Board Member Furth: I’m looking at front elevation 12.2 – no, I’m looking at front right perspective, yeah; the left-hand window. I mean in this drawing it looks like the supporting braces practically hit the roof below it. I mean it’s – bay windows are separated from other elements. They should be separated from the roof below or the grown. They shouldn’t go all the way up to the roof line. It just seems wrong to me but I could be wrong. Board Member Baltay: Well, the code has very clear descriptions of bay windows and I’ve steered clear of getting into that because Sheldon, I am sure is looking -- it’s a 50% of the glass area (inaudible) (crosstalk) Board Member Furth: Well, I wasn’t talking about whether it meets the code. I was talking about whether it was going to look bad. Vice Chair Kim: I am ok with that one. Board Member Furth: Alright. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I didn’t feel it raised to a level of… Mr. Lait: Ok, so just to clarify, the amendment is to – on lot 12, is just to eliminate the decorative chimneys? Board Member Baltay: Just chimney, there is one of them. Mr. Lait: One chimney, ok. Board Member Furth: I accept it. AMENDMENT #15 Board Member Baltay: I don’t have any changes to house thirteen. It does have a chimney though, Kyu, if you want to chimney in. Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, to me it’s not at the fireplace. I mean it’s in the vicinity maybe but it’s further in, in the family room so I would say let’s get rid of it. It’s a decorative chimney in my opinion. I would make a friendly amendment that we remove the decorative chimney on lot thirteen. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Furth: I accept. Mr. Lait: Board Member Baltay do you accept that as well? Board Member Baltay: Yes, I am sorry. I accept that. AMENDMENT #16 Board Member Baltay: Ok, I amend that on house number fourteen, we remove the decorative chimneys, as seen on many of the drawings. Board Member Furth: I accept. Board Member Baltay: That’s the only amendment, yeah. AMENDMENT #17 Board Member Baltay: Ok, on house… Chair Lew: Can I ask a question on the garages – on the detached garage on lot fourteen. Board Member Baltay: Sure. Chair Lew: This is for the applicant. So, if it’s on the property line, do you not – we do not have to put in a parapet to protect the roof? Like an unrated roof? Mr. Sakai: Not based on our experience in Palo Alto. It does have to be a 1-hour wall with no eave overhang but we haven’t been restricted to doing a parapet type roof typically. I mean usually what we do is a shed or a hip roof. Chair Lew: Then draining onto another property so, like the downspout location and all that, you can… Mr. Sakai: Oh no, we will typically set the structure slightly in off the property line so they are not really right on top of the property line which leaves room for the gutter to be on the owner’s property and then yeah, drain. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. Board Member Baltay: Ok, amendment for house number fifteen, three things, that the decorative chimneys be removed. That the roof element over the front porch on the first floor be sloped or otherwise reconfigured to be better integrated. The roof element on the first floor over the front porch be sloped or otherwise be reconfigured to better integrate with the design of the house. Lastly, that the bay window elements; two of them on the front of the house, seen on the front perspective on sheet A-15.2 and the third one is on the back of the house seen on the rear elevation. Where the perspective be reduced in scale and size. Board Member Furth: Before I accept that, I have a question. When I look at the front left perspective drawing – sorry. When I look at the front left perspective drawing on A-15.2, it looks like this terribly heavy element; way too heavy. Am I reading that wrong? Board Member Baltay: Over the front door in the middle? Board Member Furth: Yep. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Board Member Baltay: That’s exactly what I was talking about. That element I said needs to be sloped or otherwise reconfigured. Board Member Furth: It’s way – my version of that is its way to heavy visually. Ok, accepted. Board Member Baltay: For what it’s worth, let me point out to the Board that on that elevation if you look at the middle height piece over the front door. That’s a sort of half height story, the reason for that is that’s the landing for the staircase going up. If you hold that to that height, it doesn’t count toward FAR again. That’s the whole rationale for doing. That’s what gives this façade a cacophonous feeling with so many roof planes. Board Member Furth: It really messes it up badly. Board Member Baltay: I am not asking them to change that. That’s a difficult design thing again. We’re trying to get it the door but I am put pointing that out to the Board Members. That’s just another example of pushing the limit as far as you can; almost every place they can. Board Member Furth: So, it’s part of the problem that fine, you can have a stairway there but to have this roof element in front it makes it all not work visually. Board Member Baltay: It – I am not going to use the word no work. Board Member Furth: I will as an amateur but your motion is accepted. AMENDMENT #18 Board Member Baltay: Ok, on house sixteen, is that where we are then? That the chimney element on the front façade on the left be designed to project from the wall that it’s on or otherwise be better integrated into the design of the building. Board Member Furth: I’m sorry, which perspective are you looking at? Board Member Baltay: I am looking at drawing A-16.2 and what’s going on is that tapered chimney you see is flush or just about flush with the wall on the first floor and it’s just a really sloppy design. It should be sticking out at least as far as the roof eave next to it. Board Member Furth: So, it’s only sticking out on the second floor presently? Board Member Baltay: And what happens is if you stick it out that far on the first floor, it’s sticking out too far on the second floor. Those are design issues that have to be addressed. Board Member Furth: So, the motion is to modify the chimney on lot 16 as shown on sheet A-16.2 so that it is not coplanar on the first floor? Board Member Baltay: Well, I was going to use the words better integrated because I don’t want to tie their hands. There are many ways they can fix that. Then the second thing on – nah, forget it. Board Member Furth: I’m lost. I am sorry but about what better-integrated means. I understand that it shouldn’t suddenly pop out on the second floor. Vice Chair Kim: I think just an easy way to clean that up is that it should not be co – the chimney should not be coplanar with the wall on the first floor. Board Member Baltay: Fair enough. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Furth: Ok. Vice Chair Kim: I am looking at that second-floor plan, Mr. Sakai. There appears to be a window at the toilet that is going to get covered by the chimney. There was another instance of that on another – same type but a different lot if you just want to keep that in mind. Board Member Furth: But this is a real chimney? Vice Chair Kim: Technically – as far as my definition it would be because there is a fireplace, right. Board Member Baltay: I think this one does have a real fireplace, yeah. Board Member Furth: Ok, accepted. Vice Chair Kim: Is that it? Board Member Furth: We are running out of houses. Vice Chair Kim: Where there any additional friendly amendments that we needed to make to this? AMENDMENT #19 Board Member Furth: That depends on what my colleagues are thinking. I am going to have trouble making the finding that the traffic design – that the circulation pedestrian whatever is ok on the private road when there is no place to pull over and so I envision people parking on the sidewalk or otherwise impairing access. I don’t know that we have any ability to do that but I don’t know that we have any ability to do that. I think Jonathan is telling me it’s 90% sure we have no ability to anything about that and I guess I would like for our next meeting clear direction from Council – from the City’s attorney’s office that as to what, if any, power we have to require additional parking for the purpose of accommodating particularly short term pick up and drop off kinds of things or short-term visitors – I am not saying this very well. Mr. Lait: I get the idea. Board Member Furth: You know who we mean. Mr. Lait: We’ll ask the City’s attorney’s office for a memo on this issue of providing street parking on this private street. Board Member Furth: If we do have the power to do it, then it would be good to have a short study from either the applicant or transportation showing how at least one or two such spaces could be provided. Thank you. If there is another way, I mean I don’t know what kind of sidewalks they are. I don’t know if they have rolled curbs and if they don’t, that will help etc. So, I am done. That meandering amendment. Board Member Baltay: Sure, yeah, I do accept it. I guess I feel that I want to get to a resolution and I want to get this project through. Then I guess I want to respect the Chair and the Committee on how you want to get us there. I have made my views pretty clear. Chair Lew: Ok, well it sounds like we are ready for a vote. We have… Mr. Lait: Yeah, I would just say… Chair Lew: Yes? City of Palo Alto Page 27 Mr. Lait: …now we have to revisit this issue of date uncertain or date certain and so the applicant has heard a list of suggestions to modify the project. I know from our end, we’re going to need two or three weeks to respond to anything that the applicant addresses and I am looking to the applicant to find out how many weeks they may need so we plot a date. So, we’re looking for applicant time need to submit – resubmit to the City and then we would add about 3-weeks to that to get to the next Board meeting. Do you have a sense for that? Chair Lew: If we set a date and they are not able to meet it, we can still push it back. Mr. Lait: That’s right. Chair Lew: So that’s – it’s not – it just – you don’t have to re-notice, is that my understanding? That… Mr. Lait: That’s right. Chair Lew: Yes. Mr. Lait: Just like to try to get it dialed in if we can. Mr. O’Hanlon: We could bring new drawings back to the City in one week. Mr. Lait: Ok. Mr. O’Hanlon: Based on these comments on the individual units. Chair Lew: Ok, so then we are looking at the month out for the City to – and what’s on the (inaudible) calendar? Mr. Lait: Yeah, I am just looking for what’s on your agenda. You got a really packed agenda on July 20th. Chair Lew: Yeah, the joint – we have joint HRB/ARB meeting and other items after that as well. Mr. Lait: Oh, did the meeting on the 3rd get canceled? Chair Lew: Yes. That was my last – that was the last that I had heard. That’s the July 6th or – the first meeting in July, right? Mr. Lait: July 6th. Chair Lew: I think Jodie had said that was going to be canceled and they would be consolidated to the 20 –to – the met – the meeting on the 20th. Mr. Lait: Ok, so one, two, three, four, five, six so you have seven items right now on your July 20th agenda. Chair Lew: I didn’t hear about that. Mr. Lait: Yeah, I am not sure all of those will go but it’s clearly a lot. On August – so, we can schedule this one on that date or we can come back on August third where you have, right now, two items and some of these from the July date are probably going to move to there. So, you have a sense for the changes that need to be made. The applicant says that they can turn it around in a week. We need 3- weeks to make our changes so the two dates that we are looking at are July 20th or August 3rd so we’ll look to the Board for a date. Board Member Furth: I won’t be here on August 3rd. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Chair Lew: I think the maker of the motion needs to include a … Mr. Lait: We’re – instead of doing it to a date uncertain, you would amend your motion to have this item come back on July 20th. AMENDMENT #20 Board Member Furth: So, this amendment will say if it’s acceptable to the seconder, the motion would say that this matter be continued to July 20th, 2017? Board Member Baltay: That’s acceptable. Chair Lew: Ok, so are we ready to vote on the motion? All in favor? Opposed? None and one absent. Just for the record, I am actually ok with the decorative chimneys but I will go with the majority of the Board. Ok, we are not done yet. Thank you all. We will see you shortly. MOTION PASSES 4-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER GOOYER ABSENT Studio S² Architecture, Inc. 1000 S Winchester Blvd San Jose, CA 95128 ph: (408) 998-0983 fax: (408) 404-0144 ESakai@studios2arch.com July 13, 2017 City of Palo Alto Planning Department 285 Hamilton Ave # 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner Re: Project File: 15 PLN-00248 Studio S Squared job#: 16-025 Project Address: 567 Maybell Avenue, Palo Alto CA Dear Mr. Ah Sing: Thank you for taking time to review our drawings for the above project. Please see our written responses to your comments below: General:  We are showing potential solar panels on south and west side of roof on every house; these panels are not part of this application but to show that the roof framing will be designed to withstand panel weights;  We removed decorative chimneys per requirements;  See landscape plans for all landscape requirements, trees locations, plants species, fence locations, material and heights;  See sheet TM3.1 for new and relocated trees. Lots 1, 3 and 6 – type 1:  Second floor wood clad bay window elements on lot 1 are lower than parapet wall so we showed more differentiation;  Front bay window on lot 1 has been reduced in size;  Steel beams and posts are matching on the front porch and in the back patio for house on lot 1;  We produced new floor plan for lot 6 with reconfigured driveway easement. 07/11/2017 2 of 3 Lots 2 and 4 – type 4:  All window elements on lot 2 have been modified to be consistent with the rest of the design;  First floor level eave on lot 2 has been modulated to be less expansive;  Front elevation, second floor height and roof design have been modified on house on lot 4. Lot 5 – type 5:  We removed board and batten elements and gable roof above. Lot 7 – type 8:  We modified chimney so it is not co-planer with the rest of the siding;  All windows are coherent. Lot 9 – type 7:  Second floor plate height is reduced to 8 feet; Lot 11 – type 3:  We changed roof pitch for front entry roof so it matches second floor pitch;  Bay windows have been reduced in size so they’re more consistent with the rest of the house. Lot 15 – type 2:  The roof at the front porch has been changed from flat to sloped roof matching the garage roof slope;  The bay windows have been reduced in scale and size. Lot 16 – type 8:  Chimney has been modified so it is not co-planer with the first floor walls. 07/11/2017 3 of 3 Thank you for your review. Please do not hesitate to call our office should you have any questions. Sincerely, Eugene H. Sakai, AIA, LEED AP President, Studio S² Architecture, Inc. cc: Ted O'Hanlon, Property Owner 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 “567 Maybell” 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 “2017.07.12 – ARB RESUBMITTAL” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8137) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/20/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3045 Park Blvd: New R&D Building (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3045 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00073]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing Office Building and Construction of a new Two-Story 29,120 Square Foot R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: GM (AD) (General Manufacturing with Automobile Dealership Combing District). For More Information Contact 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 continuation of the project to a date uncertain and provide recommendations to the applicant on how to better meet the findings for approval. Report Summary The application is a request for major architectural review of a new 29,120 square foot (sf) two story R&D building with a two level parking structure and associated site improvements. The new building would replace an existing 17,000 square foot building on the site constructed in 1987 with approximately 10,000 square feet of floor area dedicated to office use. The existing building is less than 45 years old and is not considered a historic resource. The site is located at the intersection of Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue in the Ventura neighborhood to the west of the Page Mill Road underpass. The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Light Industrial and is zoned General Manufacturing (GM) with an Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The project is subject to the Interim Annual Office Limit Ordinance (PAMC 18.85.210) and, accordingly, a project decision can be made only within the timeframe for qualifying projects as outlined in the ordinance (April 1 – June 30). The applicant has requested an early first hearing in order to introduce the project and to seek the Board’s comments on the proposed site layout, so that change can be made prior to a recommendation by the ARB. Staff recommends that the project be continued to allow for these refinements to the site plan, and in particular, the placement of the parking structure. Background Project Information Owner: Ray Paul, Jay Paul Company Architect: Thomas Gilman, DES Architects Representative: N/A Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 3045 Park Boulevard Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 1.337 acres Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: Yes, COE Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: No Historic Resource(s): Not a historic resource Existing Improvement(s): Two story office building; circa 1987 Existing Land Use(s): Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PF Zone (Caltrain ROW) West: GM Zone (Mixed Use Development) East: GM Zone (Office Building) South: ROLM, RM-30, and GM Zone (Office Building, Fry’s Site) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: GM (AD) General Manufacturing District with Automobile Dealership Combining District Comp. Plan Designation: LI Light Industrial 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, adjacent to the west of the side Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: A similar project for a 29,120 sf R&D building on the site was Recent Mixed Use project City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 previously reviewed by the ARB at a study sessions on November 19, 2015 and December 17, 2015. At the time, the project was being considered simultaneously with an application for the redevelopment of the site at 2747 Park Boulevard near the site. The application for 3045 Park Boulevard (14PLN-00389) was withdrawn on January 4, 2016, while the application for 2747 Park Boulevard (14PLN-00388) was subsequently reviewed by the ARB on March 17, 2016 and approved by the Planning Director on April 21, 2016. Project Description The site is located at the intersection of Park Boulevard and Olive Drive in the Ventura neighborhood. The site contains a two-story office building which recently contained a car rental business. A mixed use project is located adjacent to the western side property line, and an office building is located adjacent to the eastern side property line. The Caltrain right-of-way borders the rear (north) of the site. Across Park Boulevard to the south is an office building and an associated parking structure. The proposed project would demolish the existing building on the site and construct a new 29,120 square foot R&D building. The building would consist of two stories, and would be 31.5 feet in height from grade to the top of the roof’s parapet wall, and 38 feet in height to the top of the roof’s mechanical screen. The building consists primarily of stone cladding with aluminum window mullions, as well as metal cornices and louvered screens. Significant portions of all of the facades would consist of glass, with several spandrel sections and frit patterns. A color and materials board will be available at the hearing. The vehicular site access consists of a single driveway approach to the west of the Park Boulevard/Olive Avenue intersection. A partially sunken two-story parking structure is proposed to the west of the building, with the second level ramp oriented perpendicular to the Park Boulevard. Additional surface parking is proposed behind the building. Pedestrians would access the site via a walkway located at the Park Boulevard/Olive Avenue intersection. Most of the existing trees on the site would be removed, and a formal landscaping plan shows a full complement of trees, groundcovers, and shrubs in the site frontage, parking lot, and along the western lot line adjacent to the parking structure. 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment C. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located in an area predominantly developed with office/R&D uses and is directly adjacent to a mixed use project containing residential units at 195 Page Mill Road. Owing to this proximity to residential uses, the project includes a screen of evergreen trees in the 10 foot setback between the parking structure and the mixed use building to the west. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies that will be evaluated with the final submittal of the application are included in Attachment F. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The Performance Criteria for the Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing, and Planning Community Districts (PAMC 18.23) contain applicable standards for the subject site. 18.23.070 contains standards for parking areas, and indicates that the purpose of the section is the following: PAMC 18.23.070: The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. Staff is concerned about the location of the proposed parking structure, which would have a 10 foot setback from the western side property line and a 15 foot setback from upper floor residential balconies. Landscaping in the form of evergreen trees is proposed in this setback, although staff does not believe that landscaping alone can minimize the visual impact of the parking structure and associated lighting, therefore staff asks the ARB to suggest refinements that would help the project better meet the intent of the Performance Criteria and Findings for Architectural Review. The applicant is proposing to partially underground the first level of parking, so that views from the residential balconies will be over the structure. Staff has two suggested options that include the provision of underground parking and the relocation of the structure towards the rear of the site, which abuts the Caltrain right-of-way. A formal transportation analysis will be performed in conjunction with the Initial Study for the project. In general, bicycle and pedestrian access to the building is well positioned 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 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 Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 appropriately planned, with a large outdoor seating area shown immediately to the right of the drive aisle. The building’s 10 foot front yard setback pushes the active areas of the site towards the street, providing a positive pedestrian scale for the site that is compatible with other developments on Park Boulevard. Consistency with Application Findings The ARB findings for approval are included for reference in Attachment C. As discussed above, staff believes that project refinements to the parking structure are needed in order to better meet the Architectural Review findings, in particular, Finding #2. ARB Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment E. The 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. As mentioned earlier, the project is subject to the Interim Annual Office Limit Ordinance (PAMC 18.85.210), which restricts net office/R&D development in certain areas of the City to 50,000 sf per fiscal year. A guideline document for the annual office limit program is included at the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51297. The proposed project would construct a new R&D building with 29,130 sf of floor area, to replace approximately 10,000 sf of floor area in the existing 17,000 square foot structure on the site dedicated to office use, for a net increase of approximately 19,130 sf of qualifying square footage. The interim ordinance is set to expire on November 26, 2017, and Planning staff is developing draft language for both an extension of the interim ordinance through June 30, 2018, as well as an adjusted, permanent ordinance. If extended, the interim annual limit would mean that the proposed project can receive an ARB recommendation, but cannot be approved until after March 31, 2018 and must compete against other projects for approval if the sum total of approval-ready projects exceeds 50,000 square feet of office/R&D. 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 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 will be prepared and circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to a formal staff recommendation on the project. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 7, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 10, 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. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Policies (DOCX)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Fry's Electronics PARKING GARAGE 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 567.5' 754.2' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 9 50.0' 98.9' 50.1' 98.9' 50.0' 103.2' 49.2' 116.5'49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5'49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 1165' 49.2' 50 80.2' 103.2' 79.9' 110.2' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 55.3' 65.0' 79.4' 60.3' 79.4' 52.7'95.9' 50.0' 95.9' 51.8'109.3' 50.0' 109.3' 51.1' 119.7' 50.0' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6' 119.7 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 32.0' 17.5'34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 48.7 134.5' 48.7' 134.5' 48.8' 134.5' 48.7' 45.0' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 90.0' 67.8'90.0' 67.8' 90.0' 66.7'90.0' 66.7' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 31.0' 134.5' 31.0' 134.5' 59.0' 134.5' 59.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0 285.8' 257.2' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.8' 134.5' 105.8' 140.3' 0' 102.8'59.0' 102.8 51.0' 102.8' 51.0' 102.8' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 52.8' 114.8' 85.5'110.0' 25.0' 110.0' 25.0' 68.6' 142.5' 65.7' 14 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 60.0'134.5' 88.0' 52.8' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 85.0' 134.5' 85.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 55.0'13 60.0' 134 45.0'134.5' 45.0' 60.0' 134.5' 95.0' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5' 60.0' 13 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 70.0' 13 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 186.2' 186.2' 159.0' 159.0'159.0' 159.0' 98.0' 98.0'159.0'159.0'159.0' 24.6' 77.9' 134.5' 134.5' 48.8' 48.8' 67.9' 67.9' 90.0' 90.0'90.0' 90.0' 66.7' 66.7' 140.3' 134.5' 45.8' 85.8' 143.0' 31.0' 149.0 119 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 0'20.0' 78.5'78.5' 450.4' 263.1' 452.' 223.8'223.8'292.1' 198.4'291.2' 370.9' 188.2' 427.3' 13.9'56.2' 123.4' 19.8' EMERSON STREET RAM ONA STREET C O L O R A D O A V E N U E EL DORADO EL DORADO AVENUE EMERSON STREET LAMBERT AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET PAGE MILL ROAD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT PO WERS BOARD RM-30 PF RM-30 R-2 R M-30 R M-15 LM GM GM GM(AD) CS(AD) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) 3045 Park Boulevard Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 219' 3045 Park Boulevard CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2017-06-22 15:44:21 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3045 PARK BOULEVARD 399 Bradford Street Redwood City, California 94063 Tel 650-364-6453 Fax 650-364-2618 www.des-ae.com Project Description Site and Context The project site is located to the south of the Oregon Expressway, at the intersection of Olive Avenue and Park Blvd. It is a few blocks away from El Camino Real, California Avenue Commercial Area and the Caltrain Station. The north side of the site runs parallels to the Caltrain railway tracks. Adjacent uses include office and apartment buildings, as well as, single-family residential homes (Olive Avenue and Ash/Pepper area). The site area is 1.3 acres net. The existing site has a 2-story unoccupied building, asphalt-paved parking/service area and perimeter landscaping. The previous tenant of the existing building leased 10,000 sq. ft., which was used as office space and workspace for an auto-body shop. The remaining space was previously leased to non-retail tenants. Project Scope and Uses This project proposes to construct a new 2-story R&D building, a parking deck, surface parking area and landscape improvements. The total building area is 29,120 sq. ft. at 0.5 FAR. Building height varies from 31.5 feet to 35 feet (measured to top of the parapet wall and roof projection). The screen for mechanical equipment extends 10’ about the roof at 38 feet. 117 on-site parking stalls will be provided to satisfy the parking requirement @ 4 / 1,000 ratio. The project is also committed to develop a robust Transportation Demand Management plan. The location, size and scale of this project make it ideal for start-up technology and innovative companies. Site Design The current site plan established the main pedestrian entry at the intersection of Olive and Park, using both the architecture and landscape elements as the visual cues. A wide paved walkway connects the public sidewalk to the building’s frameless glass entrance and the “protected” plaza. This generous amenity space is screened by low landscaping and stone walls and opens up to the lawn area at the back (including the turf-cell paved truck parking space). The entry driveway is located to the north of this space with a min 10’ off-set from the Olive Avenue, and it separates the depressed parking deck from the R&D building (roughly 70’ apart). Incoming vehicles can either proceed to the rear surface parking area and the ramp down to the lower parking level or taking the ramp up to the parking deck. Turn-out spaces are provided at the ends of the parking lot and upper level of the parking deck. Accessible parking spaces are placed at the lower parking deck level with ramp leading back to the public sidewalk and building entrance. The project maintains 10’ landscape setback on the street front, the north and the south sides of the site. It also has a 5’ wide heavily landscaped frontage along the Caltrain railway track. 3045 Park Boulevard DES Project No. 10006.001 July 12 2017 Page 2 of 4 DES Architects + Engineers, Inc. Building Design The R&D building takes a basic “box” form but is broken down into various parts of different finishes and textures that compliment each other. The main focal point is the highly transparent building façade / massing that align with the Olive Avenue view corridor. These full-height curtain walls, that frame the view from/to the street, are articulated with accent mullions, roof projections and horizontal metal screens. A portal design concept was used to distinguish the actual building entry, including the use of structural glass, canopy and metal-clad frames. The “Caltrain” side of the building also has a very transparent façade. The other parts of the building take on more opaque materials, such as limestone (park blvd) and integral color cement plaster. The design also addresses bird-safe issue by adding dot-frit patterns to vision glass 8’ above finish floor and spandrel glass (except for the structural glass at entry). The scale and design of the parking deck echoes the pedestrian-friendly character of the R&D building and site plan. Its lower parking level is depressed 2.5’ so that the overall height of the deck is minimized to roughly 10’ above grade. Full-height perforated metal screens and tall landscaping wraps around the entire street façade of the parking deck. A smaller horizontal metal louver was added to compliment the architecture of the R&D building. The upper parking deck level will have cable railings on the south side (interior side). The other two sides will have 4’ tall concrete spandrel walls. For effective screening of the adjacent mixed- use building, 2’ tall perforated metal screen will be added onto the concrete wall on the north side, as well as, trees of appropriate heights in the 10’ setback area. The concrete walls / columns will have integral color with score lines. Illumination of the upper level of the parking deck will be provided by pole mounted area lights. The poles supporting the fixtures are 4' tall and are mounted to the 4' tall crash barrier (concrete wall), for an overall height of 8'. The specified fixtures have full cutoff and neighbor friendly optics, with no uplight and negligible backlight. The fixtures closest to the property line also have a physical backside shield to avoid direct view of the light source. As required by Title 24, the fixtures are to be equipped with time of day controls and motion sensors. The project is also considering a coating material over the concrete slab to lower the reflective quality of the parking surface. Alternate parking deck options Several other site plans were considered before settling on the present site plan for the project. The present site plan puts the parking structure on the north side of the lot with the bottom floor two and half feet below grade. This arrangement places the top floor of the parking structure 6 feet below the floor level of the residential units next door and places the project building 10 feet away from property line. It is not uncommon in Palo Alto and in other cities in the Bay Area to have residential units look onto parking at the ground floor level. In this case, the cars would be below the floor of the adjacent residential, which is a significantly better condition than many existing residential units in Palo Alto currently enjoy. 3045 Park Boulevard DES Project No. 10006.001 July 12 2017 Page 3 of 4 DES Architects + Engineers, Inc. We examined placing the parking structure on southern side of the lot and moving the building north to provide the necessary access to parking, exchanging the relative positions of the building and the parking structure. This alternative was rejected because it would face the side of the 32 foot tall building into the first and second floor residential units with only 33 feet of separation between the buildings, significantly impacting the views and the privacy of many of the residents on the second and third floors. The existing site plan provides 155 feet of separation between the residential units next door and the project building. We examined placing the parking structure on the eastern side of the lot, behind the building. This alternative was rejected because it would place the parking structure as close as 10 feet to the building, with no realistic option to mitigate the impact with landscaping. Furthermore, this option would put one end of the parking structure adjacent to the residential units to the north of the site, and consequently would be no better than the current plan of some of the residential units while having an unacceptable impact on the project building. Furthermore, it would eliminate the possibility of placing trees along the back of the project, creating a far more barren look and feel. The Palo Alto arborist was very enthusiastic about the number of trees envisioned in the current site plan. There would be no way to achieve that effect were we to place the parking structure behind the building. Finally, we examined placing the parking structure under the building. This alternative is not economically feasible for a building of this size, in this location in Palo Alto. The cost of underground parking is estimated to be more than $13 million dollars. It is not reasonable to impose that kind of expense on a project which is under 30,000 sf, and it is not required under existing building codes or existing ordinances. Landscape design The project’s street frontage is softened by 8 - 10 feet wide landscape bands that culminate into the entry plaza at the intersection of Olive and Park. The entry plaza creates an ample, outdoor atrium to serve as a visual and physical resting place—a welcoming garden room at the terminus of Olive avenue, seamlessly blending the pedestrian-oriented streetscape with the new office building. Benches and low planter walls with integrated seating provide varied opportunities for social seating, and are buffered from the street with mixed plantings. The pedestrian experience is enhanced by bike racks and an additional seating area that echoes the language introduced at 2747 Park Blvd. The seating area is shaded by adjacent trees and plantings provide a sense of separation from the adjacent building and sidewalk. Plantings along the property lines provide dense screening for the adjacent residential and office buildings. Evergreen trees and trellises with vines along the north-western edge of the parking deck create a green wall that coordinates with the adjacent balconies. Based on previous discussion with the City, the project will add street parking, landscaped bulb- outs, seating benches and bike racks along its frontage. Two new pedestrian crossings will be constructed to connect the existing sidewalks on the west side of Park Blvd. Sustainable design 3045 Park Boulevard DES Project No. 10006.001 July 12 2017 Page 4 of 4 DES Architects + Engineers, Inc. The goal of the project is to meet CalGreen and City’s Green Building benchmark. It will also apply for USGBC LEED Sliver certification (version 4.0). Sustainable design measures currently under consideration include energy-efficient HVAC systems, high-performance and bird-safe glazing, solar shading, electrical vehicle chargers, drought-tolerant landscaping and reduced outdoor water use/irrigation. ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3045 Park Boulevard 17PLN-00073 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Performance Criteria 18.23 3045 Park Boulevard 17PLN-00073 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the downtown, 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. Consistency will be finalized prior to recommendation on this formal application. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. 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. 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. 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 visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. 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 requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. 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. 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 3045 Park Boulevard, 17PLN-00073 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (GM DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 1 acre, no width or depth requirement 1.337 acres No change Minimum Front Yard (2) No requirement Unknown 10 feet building, 3 feet parking structure Rear Yard No requirement Unknown 64.5 feet building, 1 foot parking structure Interior Left Side Yard No requirement Unknown 10 feet parking structure Interior Right Side Yard No requirement Unknown 10 feet building Min. yard for site lines abutting or opposite residential districts No requirement Not applicable Not applicable Special Setback No requirement Not applicable Not applicable Max. Site Coverage No requirement Unknown 30,079 sf (52%) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 Unknown 29,120 sf 0.5:1 Max. Building Height 50 feet, or 35 feet within 150 feet of a residential zone Unknown 31.5 feet to parapet and 38 feet to mechanical screen Daylight Plane for site lines having any part abutting one or more residential districts (1) 10 feet Not required Not required Employee Showers R&D(20,000-49,000 sf) Unknown 2 showers (1) Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Research & Development uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/259 sf of gross floor area for a total of 116 parking spaces Unknown 117 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf (80% long term and 20% short term) equals 12 spaces Unknown 16 spaces (10 long term, 6 short term) Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10,000-99,000 sf Unknown 1 loading space * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements ATTACHMENT F COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 3045 Park Boulevard / 17PLN-00073 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 Light Industrial. 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. Consistency will be finalized prior to recommendation on this formal application. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. 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. 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. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City. Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. 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-19: Improve and create additional, attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, at public facilities, in new private developments, and other community destinations. Policy T-20: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. 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. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Business and Economics Element Goal B-5: Attractive, Vibrant Business Centers, Each with a Mix of Uses and a Distinctive Character. Attachment G 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 “3045 Park Boulevard” 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 “3045 Park Boulevard Project Plans” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7999) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 7/20/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 356 Hawthorne Avenue: Preliminary Review for Multi-Family Development Title: 356 Hawthorne Avenue [17PLN-00109]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed 4,720 Square Foot, Multi-Family Development Comprised of Three Detached Single-Family Residential Units Each With an Attached Single Car Garage. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family Residential). 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): 1. Review and provide comments. No formal action is requested. 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 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. 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: SGLG Investments, LLC Architect: Michael Chacon Representative: Michael Chacon Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 356 Hawthorne Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown North Lot Dimensions & Area: 190’ x 50’; 9,505 sf Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, two (2) protected street tree locations; one (1) red maple and one (1) vacant street tree planter area Historic Resource(s): Historical Resources Evaluation required for determination Existing Improvement(s): 4,032 total sf; one- and two-story residences; 1922 Existing Land Use(s): RM-15 Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-15, PF (Johnson Park) West: R-15 (low-density multi-family residential) East: RM-30 (Everett Manor, Everett Apartments, multi-family residential apartments) South: RM-30, PC-4339 and RMD(NP) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-15) Comp. Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential 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, within RM-15 zoning district and adjacent to RM-30 and PC-4339 (within 150’ of subject site) Located w/in Airport Influence Area: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed project would demolish an existing four-unit, 4,032 sf multi-family residential development and construct three detached condominium units, each with an attached single- car garage in the Low Density Multi-family Residence District (RM-15). The development is comprised of a 1,894 sf, two-story residence (Unit 1) located along Hawthorne Avenue, an 1,808 sf, two-story residence (Unit 2) in the middle of the lot and a 993 sf, single-story residence (Unit 3) along Bryant Court. The two-story units are proposed at maximum heights of 23 feet 2 3/8 inches and 23 feet 4 ½ inches for Units 1 and 2 respectively, with the single-story Unit 3 proposed at a maximum height of 16 feet 4 ¾ inches. Units One and Two are proposed to share a common driveway accessed off of Hawthorne Avenue with Unit 3’s access to be taken off of Bryant Court. Each lot is designed to accommodate an uncovered parking space in addition to the required covered parking stall; Unit 1 features a tandem parking orientation as permitted in this zoning district. The total floor areas (4,695 sf) of the proposed condominiums nearly maximize the allowed 0.5:1 FAR (or 4,753 sf) for the 9,506 sf lot. The three proposed residential units are the maximum density for this sized lot as prescribed for the RM-15 zoning district. All three of the proposed residences share a similar modern farmhouse architectural design. Unit 1 is proposed as a two-story residence to match the two-story streetscape of the adjacent properties on either side of it along Hawthorne Avenue. Unit 3 is proposed as a small one-story residence which is consistent with the low-roof profiles of the neighboring properties (228 Waverley Street and 351 Bryant Court) and appropriate for close proximity and density of residences along Bryant Court. The shared driveway serving Unit 1 and Two is located on the left side of the lot in order to protect the large coast live oak that exists on the neighboring lot (350 Hawthorne Avenue) near the shared side yard lot line. The project is subject to the Multiple Family Context-based Criteria as outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.13.060 in addition to the development standards specified for the RM-15 zoning district. The applicant requests the ARB’s consideration of the project’s compliance with the applicable design guidelines, as well as feedback of the overall design. A separate preliminary parcel map application to subdivide the lot into three separate condominium parcels will be required should the applicant choose to formally submit a development application. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5  Architectural Review – Major (AR). Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is 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 AR applications 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 The following key issue has been identified by planning staff and may warrant further discussion from the ARB: Shared/Common Usable Open Space Area Pursuant to the development standards outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.13.040 – Table 2, the RM-15 zoning district requires a minimum of 200 sf of usable open space per unit which can be comprised of a combination of common and private open space. Common open space is required to be at least 10 feet wide and is intended to be a shared accessible space for use by all residents on the lot. The applicant’s current proposal designates a portion of Unit 1’s and 2’s front yard area (typically categorized as site open space) as common open space area which satisfies the development standard, but in staff’s opinion avoids the intent of the requirement as these proposed areas aren’t likely to be viewed by the lot’s residents as shared space available for use by all. Staff suggests the applicant relocate the private open space areas of Unit 1 and 2 to a location along each side yard and utilize the area City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 between Unit 1’s rear yard and Unit 2’s front yard as a large designated common usable open space area that could include an amenity such as a small playground or barbeque area available for use by all residents on the lot. The utility and accessibility of such a shared area could be further increased should the proposed location and design of the residences be reconfigured. 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 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 (JPG)  Attachment B: RM-15 Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Context-Based Design Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 356 Hawthorne Avenue, 17PLN-00109 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-15 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 9,506 sf, 50 foot width, 189.98 foot depth Maximum Residential Density 15 units per 1 acre (3.27 units) 3 total units Minimum Front Yard 20 feet 20 feet (to the closest front exterior wall of Unit 1) Street Rear Yard 16 feet 16 feet (to the closest rear exterior wall of Unit 2) Interior Side Yard (for lots w/widths of < 70 feet 6 feet 10 feet 4 𝟑𝟕 ⁄inches (left); 6 feet 6 ¾ inches (right) 7 feet 9 ¾ inches (left); 7 feet 9 inches (right) 6 feet 2 𝟕𝟕⁄ inches (left); 6 feet (right) Max. Building Height 30 feet 23 feet 2 3/8 inches 23 feet 4 ½ inches 16 feet 4 ½ inches Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Compliant Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Compliant Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs) 35% (3,305 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 0.49:1 (4,695 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 35% 35% (3,327 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 200 sf per unit 445 sf 473 sf 760 sf Minimum Common Open Space 100 sf per unit 242 sf 343 sf 536 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit 203 sf 130 sf 224 sf Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking Two (2) spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. Two (2) spaces per unit, with each unit providing one (1) covered parking space Bicycle Parking One (1) Long-term bicycle parking space Three (3) total; one (1) for each unit ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 356 Hawthorne Avenue 17PLN-00109 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Attachment D: Context-Based Design Criteria 356 Hawthorne Avenue 17PLN-00109 Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(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. Massing and Building Facades Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with the street(s). 2. 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. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. 4. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units, attached row houses/townhouse, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design shall be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. Performance Criteria 18.23 356 Hawthorne Avenue 17PLN-00109 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. Consistency will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. 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. 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. 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 visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. 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 requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. 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. 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 F COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 356 Hawthorne Avenue / File No. 17PLN-00109 Land Use and Community Design Element The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Multiple Family Residential. Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. Analysis will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. 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-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each With Its Own Distinct Character and Within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places. Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing opportunities. Policy L-14: Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street. 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-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Policy T-19: Improve and create additional, attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi- modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, at public facilities, in new private developments, and other community destinations. 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. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Attachment G 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 “356 Hawthorne 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 - REVISED (07.09.2017).pdf” and dated 07/05/2017 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8060) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 7/20/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 640 Waverley Street: Prelim for a Mixed Use Building Title: 640 Waverley Street [17PLN-00105]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed Three-Story, 9,733 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development With a Basement. The Proposal Consists of Office Space on the Ground Floor and Basement Level, and a Residential Unit on the Second and Third Floor. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 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. 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: Linnovations, LLC Architect: Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Representative: Not applicable Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 640 Waverley Street Neighborhood: Downtown Lot Dimensions & Area: 50’ X 105.5’ Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, Ginkgo tree in City planter strip in front of property Historic Resource(s): Not eligible for listing as a historic resource Existing Improvement(s): Two existing one-story houses used as offices Existing Land Use(s): Office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northeast: RM-40 Zoning (Multiple Family Use) Northwest: CD-C(P) Zoning (Mixed Use) Southeast: CD-C(P) Zoning (Multiple Family Use) Southwest: PF Zoning (City-owned parking lot) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CD-C(P) Downtown Commercial Community District with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District Comp. Plan Designation: CC Regional/Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes, applies to the project (Attachment E) Downtown Urban Design Guide: Yes, applies to the project: Part I: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514 Part II: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6515 Part III: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6516 (Commercial and Residential Edges in Attachment F) 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, applies to the project Located w/in 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: Project was reviewed by the HRB at a voluntary study session on May 25, 2017. A video of the meeting is available online at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqiliBXqnVE The staff report prepared for the HRB meeting is available at the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57908 ARB: None Background Neighborhood Setting and Character The site currently contains two houses used as offices that would be demolished with the construction of the mixed use building. The house addressed as 640 Waverley Street is located at the front of the property and was constructed in 1908. The house addressed as 646 Waverley is located in the rear portion of the property and was constructed in 1904. Both structures are designed in the Vernacular Bungalow architectural style. Historic Review Board The project was reviewed in a voluntary study session by the Historic Resources Board on May 25, 2017 in order to seek the Board’s feedback on the project. The discussion focused on the transition in scale between the Category 2 Historic Resource adjacent to the structure and the mixed use project currently under construction at 636 Waverley Street. Additional discussion focused on the Historic Resource Evaluation and peer review prepared previously for the structures on the subject site. Board members generally expressed concerns regarding the height of the structure in relation to the house to the east. Additional comments focused on the massing, similarities in the style and layout of the proposed project and the adjacent project currently under construction at 636 Waverley Street. The perception was the similar styles could be read as one large mass and therefore dwarfs the adjacent Category 2 building. No formal action or recommendation on the project from the HRB was required or taken. Surrounding the site is a Category 2 Historic Resource immediately adjacent to the east at 650 Waverley Street and a new four-story mixed use building under construction immediately to the west at 636 Waverley Street. Across Waverley Street from the site are multi-family residences, and behind the site is a surface parking lot. Project Description The application for preliminary review proposes a new 9,733 square foot (sf), three-story mixed-use building with a basement. Commercial space totaling 5,237 sf would be contained in the basement and first floor of the building. The project plans show a single residential unit of 4,496 sf proposed on the upper floors. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The project proposes a contemporary style building with a mix of wood panel, glass, and concrete exterior materials and significant use of horizontal forms. The height of the structure is shown to be 40’-4”. The property at 636 Waverley Street is developed with a 50 foot tall building, the other neighboring property at 650 Waverley is a low rise building approximately 28 feet in height. The project plans include two options for the treatment of the building elevations, which include slightly differences in the scale and massing of the structure. Option 1 proposes a traditional flat roof with a third floor stepped back from the east side. Option 2 proposes a sloped roof facing the east side, providing a half-gable form as viewed from the street. Pedestrian access to the commercial portion of the structure would be from Waverley Street and access to the residential portion would be recessed from Waverley Street. A driveway is proposed along the eastern portion of the site, which would lead to a two-car garage served by a vehicle turntable. Parking provided by the garage would be attributed to the residential component of the project. The additional required spaces for the commercial component would be provided in lieu through payment into the Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District. 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 B. 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  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 Additionally, two key issues of concern have been identified in the review of the preliminary application. These issues are described briefly below. Single-Family Use: The current proposal includes one dwelling unit across the second and third floors of the building. The Municipal Code authorizes mixed use buildings in the CD-C zone, which can include a mix of residential, retail, office, and other uses as outlined in the CD use table (PAMC 18.18.050 Table 1). However, the Code does not provide for one or two-family development as a component of a mixed use project. Multiple-family use is permitted and is defined as three or more dwelling units on the site. Pedestrian Shopping Combining District: The project site is located in the Pedestrian Shopping (P) Combining District, which is a zoning district intended to maintain an economically healthy retail district through the use of pedestrian design features. The exact features are determined through the Architectural Review process, but examples include the following: a. Display windows, or retail display areas; b. Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length of the adjoining frontage times 1.5 feet; c. Landscaping or architectural design features intended to preclude blank walls or building faces. The proposed project includes a large light well along the frontage of the property, which does not seem to meet the intent of the (P) combining district. The Context Based Design Criteria in Section 18.18.110 requires mixed use projects to include public and private open space that is usable to residents, visitors, and employees. Open space may be any combination of private and common space, and it is encouraged that at-grade open space along the Waverley Street frontage be considered in order to provide a more active public realm. Staff recommends that the ARB also consider the project in relation to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, specifically the provisions concerning Commercial and Residential Edges (Attachment F). 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 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’s conformance with CEQA will be performed. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment D: Performance Standards (DOCX)  Attachment E: Context Based Design Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines - Commercial and Residential Edges (PDF)  Attachment G: Comprehensive Plan Table (DOCX)  Attachment H: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 120-16-002 120-16-099 120-16-034 120-16-033 120-16-024 120-16-063 120-16-039 120-16-040 120-16-061 120-16-038 120-16-035 120-16-062 120-16-016 120-16-017 120-16-059 Lanning Chateau Willia ms Property Waverley Surgery Center Post Office 94301 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 10 170.0'100.0' 30.0' 50.0' 50.0' 90 150.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 50.0' 25.0' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0' 25.0' 50.0' 150.0' 150.0' 125.0' 1500 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 1 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 225.0'200.0'150.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 230.0' 50.0' 30.0' 100.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 105.5' 150.0' 105.5' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 200.0'150.0' 0' 343.0' 193.0' 343 70.0' 193.0' 70.0' 193.0' 150.0' 218.0' 150.0' 218.0' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5'50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 100.0' 204.8' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 193.0' 193.0' 100.0' 100.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 427-453 650 636 628 385 365 375 380 345 664 325 650-654 661 635 690 675 425 635 430 400 744 734 724-730 720 712 704 360 351 332 653 -681 683685 455 400 350 457-467 469-471 473-481 729 425 372 421 727 642 643 423 756 - 760 651 640-646 411 - 419 432 434 436 GILM A N STR E ET W A VERLE Y STR E ET T F O REST AVE N U E T FO R E ST AV ENUE W A VERLE Y STR E ET PF CD-C(P) RM-40 RM-40 DHS This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Historic Site abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk 640 Waverley Street Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Zone District Labels 0' 99' 640 Waverley Street CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2017-06-21 18:03:56 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ATTACHMENT A ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 640 Waverley Street 17PLN-00105 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Performance Criteria 18.23 640 Waverley Street 17PLN-00105 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the downtown, 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. Consistency will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. 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. 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. 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 visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. 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 requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. 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. 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 Context-Based Design Criteria 640 Waverley Street 17PLN-00105 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 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 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 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 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 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 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 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project ATTACHMENT G COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 640 Waverley Street / 17PLN-00105 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 Regional Commercial. An analysis of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan will be performed upon the submittal of a formal application. 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. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. 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. 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-18: Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that is compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. 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. 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. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City. Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. 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-19: Improve and create additional, attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, at public facilities, in new private developments, and other community destinations. Policy T-20: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. 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. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT H ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 640 Waverley Street, 17PLN-00105 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 8 feet 6 inches Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 2 feet 10 feet for residential portion; 1.5 feet for residential garage Interior Side Yard None Required Left: 2 feet Right: 6 feet Left: 1 foot Right: 6 inches Street Side Yard No requirement Not applicable Not applicable Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required Unknown 48% 2,532 sf Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% 1,000 sf Unknown 34% 1,782 sf Private Open Space 200 sf per unit Not applicable 1,330 sf Maximum Height 50 feet 28 feet 40 feet 4 inches Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district Daylight plane height and slope identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the lot line Not applicable Not applicable Residential Density (net) 40 0 8.25 du/ac (1 unit, 5,178 sf lot) Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 FAR Unknown 0.99:1 FAR 5,237 sf Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 Not applicable 0.85:1 FAR 4,496 sf Total Floor Area Ratio 2.0:1 10,000 sf Unknown 1.84:1 9,733 sf 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. Page 2 of 2 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Mixed-Use Projects Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) 2 spaces per unit; 1/250 sf of gross floor area for a total of 21 parking spaces Undefined 2 residential spaces provided onsite; 0 commercial spaces onsite; 21 spaces to be provided in lieu through Assessment District Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf (40% long term and 60% short term) equals Long Term: 1 locker Short Term: 1 rack Undefined Long Term: 1 locker Short Term: 1 rack Loading Space Not required Undefined None 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 “640 Waverley 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 “640 Waverley Street Preliminary Review”